Talk:Blur (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	Blur (band) was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view this week's collaboration, or view other past collaborations.

Contents 1 Don't Bomb... 2 Suede 3 Modern Life is Rubbish 4 Copyvio 5 Copied from the NME 6 Boo 7 Musical characteristics 8 Discography 9 Coupland 10 Electronica 11 IS vs ARE 12 Anti-war? I think not! 13 Requested move 13.1 Survey 13.2 Discussion 14 GA Fail 15 GA 16 "Former Member" 17 Picture 18 Current pic 19 pov 20 Bit Of A Blur - Alex James' autobiography 21 I don't know what to do with this.... 22 Graham Coxon 23 And I don't know what to do with THIS

[edit] Don't Bomb...

Does "Don't Bomb When You're The Bomb" really count as a single? It was such a limited vinyl release (and I'm not even sure it was commercially released at all) and Blur weren't even credited on it. --Moochocoogle 03:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed "Don't Bomb..." from the list. As far as I can tell it was only released as a promo. --Moochocoogle 04:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps it shouldn't be credited as an official single. Still, I think should be mentioned. It was essentially a preview of the style of music that appeared on Think Tank, which was quite a change for Blur (though songs like "Black Box", so we should not this. Acegikmo1 06:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "don't bomb" was blown up by the metropolitan police. It was a promotional release to radiostations and so forth but a big case of something saying "bomb" wasn't appreciated and it was destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrikPatrik (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suede

Completely wrong to state that Blur paved the way for Suede's success; the chronology is the wrong way round. Suede arrived at the beginning of 1993, they paved the way for Parklife.

Well I don't think the article actually says that. It does say that Suede benefitted from the success of Parklife. There was britpop before Parklife (Blur's 1993 album Modern Life Is Rubbish is also britpop, by the way) but it wasn't very successful until Parklife. --Moochocoogle 17:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... here we go straddling that Suede/Blur line again... I happen to think this comment is missleading as well. To many who know the genre, it is pretty well known that Suede were established in their own right at that particular time. It was moreso a culmination of Blur, Suede, Pulp and then Oasis that broke the scene wide open -- not just one album that got the press to pay attention. It was like any movement and depended upon who struck you first. But I have to say, as an afterthought on this, to even mention Suede as a tailgate in this sentence, is slightly insulting. I mean... they were mentioned after Menswe@r - come on! I don't entirely mean to be rude here, but Suede were at the barracades guys! Anjels` 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Life is Rubbish

Can there be a bit about the genesis of modern life? I think it's pretty important.

They went on tour in America (see the documentary Popscene) had a really awful time, listened to the Kinks on the tourbus, because they only took a few tapes with them, and that happened to be one, all of which leads to the turn to using only English influences.

It'd also be nice to stick some stuff in about the two promo photos, British Image 1 and 2, and the use of the Union Jack in comparisson to Morrissey's, which was only a few months before - though I appreciate that's a bit off topic.

Well if you know some good stuff that you think should go in the article then go for it. The in-depth stuff is probably best off in the Modern Life Is Rubbish article though. --Moochocoogle 15:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

A huge amount of this article is directly copied from the Allmusic biography of Blur. I'm going to list at the copyright violations page. john k 02:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI, The copyvio appears to have been introduced by User:Painbearer. john k 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the diff, by the way: [1]. john k 02:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tick, tock, Painbearer. Better get to removing the copyvio, or I'm just going to revert. john k 02:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've come to check out the page from wikipedia copyvio's, a lot of work seems to have been done on the article since the copyvio was added in January. I suggest that instead of reverting it, any sections of text that still appear as cut and pastes from all music.com be rewritten or cut from the article. --nixie 01:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of work, but there's still a huge amount of copyvio. john k 18:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done a lot of tidying/rewriting which has hopefully got rid of even more of the copyright vio Cavie78 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from the NME

That section on the new album is straight out the NME. [2] Figured I should point this out. - 211.28.82.49 07:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Painbearer strikes again. I've removed the section for now. Anyone want to rewrite it? --Moochocoogle 22:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boo

that's sound quite stupid. "Only public domain resources can be copied exactly—this does not include most web pages." I think that this relates about news too. But if you are such daring creature deleting it, go and rewrite it. I'm reverting back to my edit. Tomorrow I will deal with it if it is still here. Painbearer 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You realize that means "most web pages are not public domain resources", right? I understand that the wording is somewhat ambiguous (someone should get on that), but from context, and common sense, one should be able to infer that copying directly from the Internet is probably not acceptable. *shrug* - 211.28.79.52 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Musical characteristics

Most of the page is about biographical and occaisonal lyrical elements of Blur's production. But I think an encyclopedia article should also (try to) describe what is specific abpout them musically. I don't know how to do this, can someone?

[edit] Discography

I really don't like the new-look discography section. It is messy and it doesn't allow for non-album singles like Music Is My Radar. --Moochocoogle 15:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I think that the singles should be afforded a separate table. Acegikmo1 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just added the "Focusing in With Blur - Interview and Music" in the noteable release section as it was not present/ --81.105.242.85 10:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Andy Martin

Some other artists have really detailed, excellent looking record performance sections. Why's Blur's so dull and skimpy? RatnimSnave 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coupland

I don't understand the contradiction in disliking American culture and grunge, and quoting Coupland in your linear notes? Can the author of that please explain it to me? //Richie rich

I'm not the author, but thought i should point out Coupland is Canadian, and Blur were massive in Canada even before the UK - There's No Other way got to number 1. So US reference is unrelated to Doug 81.106.131.118 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Dylan

[edit] Electronica

I just added Electronica to their music styles. (Think Tank, Music is My Radar...)

[edit] IS vs ARE

'Blur' is a singular noun. It refers to one group. Using "Blur are" is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zethon (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 August 2006.

I have already raised this issue on your talk page. "Blur are" is the accepted way of referring to a group in British usage. Please stop changing it.

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-war? I think not!

According to the article, Blur refused to have their "Song 2" used in a promotion for the military because they are anti-war. Yet the same song was used in the trailer for Starship Troopers - which is a movie ALL ABOUT WAR!! Makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, Starship Troopers is far more violent than any military ad would be. I think they should have re-evaluated that decision! Davez621 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Starship Troopers IS anti-war! And even if it wasn't it's a sci-fi film - are you suggesting Blur believe strongly that the human race should start a fight with some alien bugs? ;-) Cavie78 10:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but how many people actually got that message, and didn't just see it as a bugs and guts exploding on screen flick. Besides, the military itself is neither pro nor anti war. They simply follow orders from higher up. The military are involved in plenty of peacekeeping operations too.Davez621 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fo' shizzle, you're right about people's perceptions of Starship Troopers but I think you'd either see it as anti-war or just a dumb popcorn flick, definitely not pro-war. As for the recruiting video I know what you're getting at but I wouldn't let any of my bands songs be used in promotion for the military despite the fact I think we need the army to defend us, perform peace keeping operations for the UN etc. Anyways the point is Blur ARE anti-war - they were involved in the 'Don't attack Iraq' movement and Damon Albarn in particular has regularly spoken out on the issue Cavie78 11:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

I am failing this due to lack of references.

• Five {{cn} tags
• The Ailerons [21] external jump
• References are not formatted correctly, they are missing retrieved and it's in the incorrect order, check the {{cite web}}
• Images are missing fair use rationales - Wikipedia:Fair use
• Remove the fan site per WP:EL
• Do not link solo years like 1989
• References come after punctuation with no space . [1] should be .[1]
  • Seymour changed their name to "Blur". Reference
  • Blur released She's So High in October 1990, which made it into the Top 40. Reference - Also wrong wikilink - UK Singles Chart
  • Blur's cultural crusade of British pride[8] but when released, charted at #32 and was dropped from the album. - Needs a ref and doesn't make any sense, what dropped from the album?
  • 15 weeks on the U.S. charts, peaking at number 52, - Needs a reference 'never "cracked" on the top 40 cracked is the wrong word. Us charts are also called Billboard 200
  • however, Think Tank was yet another UK #1 and managed their highest US position of #56. Reference
  • Alphabetize categories - not GA but makes it look better

More references, fair use rationales, format references to include all details. M3tal H3ad 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

Here are some things to fix before going for GA again. The parenthetical years in the lead are probably unnecessary and look very distracting. There are still unreferenced paragraphs in "(1993–1995) The Britpop years and height of fame" and "(2004–present) Solo projects and possible reunion". All fair use images need detailed fair use rationales. The gallery of album covers should also probably be removed; a name, date, and chart positions don't make for good critical commentary (as required by WP:FU). The audio samples should appear in the main article space per Wikipedia:Music samples. The references are improperly formatted; there is no access date for any of the online ones. Try using {{cite web}} for the online ones. Also, I have serious doubts as to whether or not a site like http://www.musicfanclubs.org/ meets WP:RS; please go through all of them and replace unreliable sources with reliable ones. ShadowHalo 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Former Member"

Does Simon Tong really count as a 'former member'? Since he only played guitar for them live after Graham Coxon's departure does that really make him an official member? By the same token you could include all the horn players/singers/keyboard players/etc. who have appeared onstage live with the band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.215.245.225 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I've taken the liberty of removing him. Hope that sits okay with the rest of you. (GarethBrown-same poster as above)

[edit] Picture

Can't we get a picture of the entire band to represent them? Damon Albarn may think he is the entire band, but he is not. ——Anthonylombardi 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's free. Until we can get a free or freely-licensed picture of the entire band, well have to stick with this (is that pic even from a performance with the band?). WesleyDodds 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current pic

I think it isn't right to have a pic of only Damon right now in the info box. However he's my hero, it just isn't right. There are three other members :P (Slowgaze 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] pov

Just reading over the article, I found the statement, "Blur were seen as has-beens", in the section discussing The Great Escape as POV and/or weasel-wordish. Seen as has-beens by whom? The statement seems to feed off of the (overblown) Oasis/Blur battle mentioned in the previous sentences, and assumes that because The Great Escape was less successful than What's the Story Morning Glory, that Blur were therefore "has-beens" (or at least "seen as" such... which is where my weasel words complaint comes in). However, my main complaint about this statement is simply the contention that they might, in 1995, be seen as has beens when their most critically and commercially popular work, Parklife, was released the previous year. I mean, even assuming that The Great Escape were an artistic and commercial failure (neither of which it was), I would find it difficult to claim that the band had fallen to the status of has-beens in so short a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.248.159 (talk) 07:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bit Of A Blur - Alex James' autobiography

Surely it merits a mention in the article?

SteveRamone 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know what to do with this....

I was reading through this, and I took this out of the "The Britpop Years" section because of grammar and general nonsensical statements.

"On August 14, 1995, Blur released their new single, "Country House". Originally slated for release on August 21, Albarn had requested the single's release moved up to compete with the release of "Roll With It", the new single from Blur's rivals, Oasis - sparking the much hyped "Battle of Britpop". Blur's "Country House" ultimately outsold Oasis's "Roll With It" 274,000 copies to 216,000 during the week. On August 20, to radio BBC announced that Blur had won the battle, for cause that sold 58,000 the more than Oasis. In the albums of Britpop, didn't The Great Escape get the defined album to be Britpop, because of the few sales, and was the defined album exactly (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, by Oasis, that sold more than 19 million copies worldwide, and is 3rd best selling UK album of all time. In September, Noel Gallagher he says in the magazine "The Observer" that wanted that Damon and Alex, they diffused AIDS and they were died. In Brit Awards 1996, when the prize "Best British Group", they sing the chorus of Parklife."

If anyone knows what the original writer was attempting to say - or knows how it should be fixed, by all means, do so - please. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the band or their history - so I'll leave this for someone else.

Thanks, guys.Gobbleodobble 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Coxon

Shouldn't he count as a former member? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and there's absolutely no mention (I could see) of his successful solo career. No exploration of the formation of Gorillaz or Albarn's other projects either. --Pipedreambomb (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Blur, not the band members' side projects. indopug (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And I don't know what to do with THIS

Similar to a message by Gobbleodobble earlier on this page. I found this bit:

On Brit Awards 1996, Blur, was nominated for 5 awards, won not because of any fault of sales because of The Great Escape. Oasis won 3 awards, in the delivery of the awards "Best Album", the band insulting Blur, and sings the chorus of Parklife for cause.

It's in the 'The Britpop years: 1993-1996' section. I'd say it's from the same author as the paragraph that Gobbleodobble mentioned. I'd fix it myself if I knew what it was about. Rien Post (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah i just copied this sentance and was about to point out exactly the same thing on the discussion. it was a really good article until all of a sudden it just became unreadable. i thought i may have forgotton how to understand engilsh or something, but im glad its not just me. can somebody clear it up please? i dont know enough about the band's history and what this is trying to say. cheers guys. Dark_Wounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)