Talk:Sugar, Sugar

December 2007

this was used as an advertising jingle in the 70s/80s for.... what?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the mid to late 1980s, a version of this song was used in commercials for the sugar substitute "Equal" -- the one in the blue packet. 2600:8806:2209:2D00:1E0:E146:38FF:9E7E (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Cake Boss

How in the world can you possibly not include the fact that Cake Boss Buddy Valastro uses this as his theme song? JustinTime55 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sugar, Sugar or Sugar Man?

The song is said to have been earlier offered to The Monkees, although songwriter Jeff Barry denies this. Monkees archival expert Andrew Sandoval has suggested that the band may instead actually have been offered a tune called "Sugar Man", but with the passage of time the parties involved simply mis-remembered it as being "Sugar, Sugar", in large part because it made a better anecdote. Peter Tork stated on an interview that they indeed were offered it.

I'm not sure I understand what this means. It says Peter Tork stated on an interview that they indeed were offered it. Offered what? "Sugar, Sugar" or "Sugar Man". Can someone please verify which of the two compositions Peter was referring to? I'd appreciate it! -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If this unsourced detail should be kept at all, searching the page history, this was added in this this diff. The person stated where this detail was verified in the edit summary, so if you can access the interview, the path to both clarifying which was meant (I think "Sugar, Sugar" by context) and citing a source is clear.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the edit summary of the editor inserting the text is vague - ie does not specify what interview or when it was given or how it can be accessed etc.- you would be justified in removing the un-sourced text if you contest it and/or feel it is false or misleading to the reader. See WP:V for more information. The preferred action though would be to research it and see what a reliable source says and correct it and create a citation or.... by placing a 'citation needed' tag at the end of the sentence by putting these brackets {{}} around the word: fact-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW (which may be not much) I remember seeing a documentary on The Monkeys here in the UK about 5 years ago in which this came up. The article reflects exactly what was said in the documentary on this and one of the Monkeys being interviewed for it, I think it was Tork, said they were in fact offered Sugar, Sugar. Not enough for WP:V but if a 'citation needed' tag could be added it would give a chance for someone to dig out a source. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well I would have thought that it meant that Peter Tork said they were in fact offered Sugar Man, but then I asked someone else and they said they believed it meant that Peter Tork said they were in fact offered Sugar, Sugar which is why I started the discussion in the first place. But the information I believe should not be removed even though it doesn't have a reference - I believe the statement is accurate. However I will tag it with the fact/citation needed tag. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No need. I don't have working speaks right now or I'd do it but but the interview was a ten second Google search away given the edit summary detail. See [1] and the actual sound file is here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just listened to it and this is what I heard -

Interviewer: Now is it true that you guys were offered the song Sugar, Sugar? But you guys refused it?

Peter Tork: Well? I suppose...I don't...I, I, I, um...yeah I guess so!

Peter Tork: By the time we were about ready for the fourth album we were getting ready to stretch our wings, we thought we were playing some real music and they offered us Sugar, Sugar, and while I actually think it's a pretty good record Sugar, Sugar, and deserves it's place in the bubblegum pop (?), we were not doing that kind of music exactly any longer, and we were into other things so we said no thanks.

By the sounds of it The Monkees may or may not have been offered the song, but I'm still pretty sure that another song "Sugar Man" was thrown at the Monkees at some point even if they were offered "Sugar, Sugar", because the song "Sugar Man" is listed in The Monkees' recording sessions, but it remains unknown whether any of the Monkees got round to recording vocals for it because when they got control over their music, they made their own decisions about what music they played, and "Sugar Man" along with several other songs from January 1967 were abandoned.

::::::But the information still contradicts Jeff Barry's denial that The Monkees were ever offered "Sugar, Sugar" claiming that it wasn't even around at the time. I guess it's just one of those rumours that may or may not ever be resolved. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We just need to use a wording along the lines of: "Peter Tork claimed in an interview that the band were offered the song "Sugar Sugar", but songwriter Jeff Barry has denied this" - with appropriate citations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, true. My use of wording is not always clear. But yeah, using a wording along the lines of what you said is definitely accurate. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I just found some references of what may really have happened. This probably won't be of any value to the pages, but I just thought I'd present them. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dante told a 2017 audience that Kirshner brought the song to him in 1969, saying that the Monkees had turned it down. [9]. - knoodelhed (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sugar, Sugar. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140502005620/http://books.google.fr/books?id=SQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT83&dq=%22sugarsugar+thearchies%22+%22angel%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=KjHrUa-4KYnL0QXOtYCIDg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAzgK to http://books.google.fr/books?id=SQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT83&dq=%22sugarsugar+thearchies%22+%22angel%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=KjHrUa-4KYnL0QXOtYCIDg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAzgK

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sugar, Sugar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=21082

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Magneto cover

The cover by Mexican band Magneto exists since 1993, from their album "Más". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.233.59 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sugar, Sugar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902235451/http://www.davemcaleer.com/page17.htm to http://www.davemcaleer.com/page17.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409063716/http://top30-2.radio2.be/ to http://top30-2.radio2.be/

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) 23:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Why was the information about Sugar Man removed?

Personally I feel that that information should have been kept. Because without the information, readers have no way of being educated about the reasons as to why it was incorrectly believed that The Monkees were offered the song "Sugar, Sugar". The more people that are educated that the rumour being false, the better. The article currently states that it is denied that The Monkees were offered "Sugar, Sugar". But without the information relating to "Sugar Man", there isn't enough information to accurately explain how this rumour could have surfaced in the first place. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are talking about this edit from 2017 (15 months ago!). The reference to Sandoval's opinion was unreferenced (as is some of the remaining text), and called "subjective and unnecessary". Plenty of unreliable blogs and mirror sites mention Sandoval's comments - if you can cite a reliable source, I think a very brief addition to the current text could be justified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I don't know of any reliable sources to add. It would be great if I did though. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have been mentioned in Sandoval's book, if anyone has access to that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Monkees

This is from The Monkees article: "A rumor persists that the Monkees were offered "Sugar, Sugar" in 1967, but declined to record it. Producer and songwriter Jeff Barry, joint writer and composer of "Sugar, Sugar" with Andy Kim, has denied this, saying that the song had not even been written at the time.[40]"

Yet, the lead in this article claims exactly this rumor to be true.--91.64.84.103 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the statement from the lead. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a million seller in UK?

There are RS FROM THE 70S stating that, yes, it DID sell 1 million copies in the UK. It appears that these "never actually sold a million" claims were attempts by what was to become the BPI to try and discredit the Disc certification system. "Ooh, look! They gave a Gold record to a single that didn't actually sell a million! That means they're unreliable, they are! We need a NEW organisation to do this, like, I dunno, how's about...the BPI?" The "didn't actually sell a million in the UK" is today taken as plain fact, sadly, in the same way as The Beatles' "Please Please Me" not reaching No 1. But there are multiple RS stating, that Sugar Sugar DID sell a million in the UK. 197.87.143.146 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As just one example, the Joseph Murrells book, used as Refs No. 58 and 60 in the article states, ON THE EXACT SAME PAGE, that Sugar Sugar sold a million in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.146 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

UK certification

Sugar, Sugar was released in UK in 1969. It was first certified Silver(250 000) in 1969, then Gold (1 000 000) in 1970.

In 2000's it was re-released as a digital single. The DIGITAL single has been certified Gold (400 000) units as of 2 February 2024. This is separate from, and unconnected to, the original 1969 7" 45rpm single.

As such, total UK certifications would be 1 400 000+.

The BPI-certified digital release should only reflect its own BPI certification(400 000).

And wiki needs to acknowledge that Disc Gold and Silver Records were 100% verified, and need to be included yesterday. 197.87.135.125 (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you make up your mind, first you say it did not sell a million then you say that it is supposed to be 1.4 million? And official recognized trade organization in the UK is indeed is BPI. The previous ones are not recognized. The sales did occur but those "certifications" were not it. Dhoffryn (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say it didn't sell a million???

You may not recognise 1959-1973 certifications, but they were covered by major newspapers and magazines, and are used as authoritative by major books covering British Music History. The BPI only recognises BPI Era Singles Sales( ie 1973-).

The BPI has only CERTIFIED for 400 000 sales. All in BPI Era. And your number doesn't even match your revisionist view... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.125 (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Relevant to article, and one editor in particular

Why that "OCC" number is wrong. This is an article, from November 2000 Chartwatch. I c&p exactly.\..

(Redacted)

....Me again. That figure that the fellow keeps posting is therefore simply NOT TRUE. ALL we have are certifications. 197.87.135.125 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Bubblegum as a genre

Can we please change the genre to just plain "bubblegum."? I grew up during this era and I never heard anyone call it bubblegum pop, it was always referred to as just bubblegum 47.185.231.7 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)