Jump to content

Talk:Arctic Monkeys/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Archive of discussions from Talk:Arctic Monkeys:


First here

Hooray I am the first on the page! Go Me...

If you found this randomly (well done you) and go to

www.ilovethesheriff.com/arcticmonkeys.html

theyre absolutely amazing and i love them

luv kayleigh x

heh, as I MADE the page I think its fair to say I was here first :p. and yes they are amazing. Kafuffle 10:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

heheheh i just randomly found this page too..wow they are amazong...stop making the eyes at me i'll stop making the eyes at u....

the arctic monkes are THE shit!!!!!!!!

Number One

cong

I'd be prepared to bet anything that ....Dancefloor is #1 come Sunday. Anything. And there is no harm in writing pre-emptively on Wikipedia - it is free to edit if it turns out to be wrong. Deano 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you should delete that part of your edit. Articles need to be based on fact, not your own speculation; where is the source to back this up? Also I think the fact you mentioned it here shows that you are preempting some kind of disapproval. --Fozi999 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Take your pick on the sources:
If this is my own speculation then I have done one hell of a job covering my bases. Arctic Monkeys rule, and if they're not number one on Sunday then it is a crime against music.Deano 08:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well that's ok then, but why didn't you mention this in the first place? I get the impression that perhaps you are annoyed at me but last night you hadn't covered your bases and hence why I contested your edit. Anyway, I've bought the single and I'll be hoping for Number 1 come Sunday too. --Fozi999 19:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

IBTYLGOTD

I've created a page for I Bet You Look Good On the Dancefloor add put in the standard stuff. There's loads more to be said though, so some contributions from people in the know would be good. Deano 12:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Beneath the Boardwalk

Does anyone know whether or not Beneath the Boardwalk is the same EP as Five Minutes with the Arctic Monkeys? If not, what is it? Deano 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Beneath the Boardwalk was what "the sheriff" tagged the mp3 files as when he released them on his website here. (link was taken down) He was handed an EP by the band simply named Demos and decided to rename it to something more original. There was a thread about it somewhere on the old forum. I'm not sure whether it deserves a mention here. Kafuffle 09:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've put in a mention in the bit about "Rise to Fame" and p2p file-sharing. I think it probably deserves a mention gicen that most people will probably presume it is an actual album or EP. Deano 15:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The title Beneath the Boardwalk came from where the recordings were. The band recorded them "Beneath the Boardwalk" which is a bar/club in sheffield. :D Arctic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.58.128 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
As far as I know, although retagged "Beneath The Boardwalk" by a fan, the famous Arctic Monkeys demos were recorded across town at the (now fully booked) 2Fly studios by Alan Smythe, a friend and former band-mate of the Arctic's manager. (mh) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.179.9 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC). Sorry, wasn't logged in, here's my sig: Markhadman 12:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's no reference, it can't go in. DJR (Talk) 15:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoke to Alan Smythe last night, and it was indeed he who recorded the famous demos. I also found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2005/02/04/arctic_monkeys_feature.shtml, an early interview, which includes the line "Arctic Monkeys have yet to release a single or album but their demo, recorded at Sheffield's 2Fly studios with 'local genius' Alan Smyth, has attracted considerable industry interest." Markhadman 12:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

On or on

When I created the page for I Bet You Look Good On the Dancefloor I copied the name directly off the image of the CD cover that is displayed on the page. Amd accordingly all wikilinks have been directed there. BUT, looking at MY copy of the single today, "on" is in small letters...

I'm confused. Deano 10:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Prepositions are not capitalised in titles. It should be 'on'. --Moochocoogle 00:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

But surely the title is what the band calls it. Look at Image:I Bet You Look Good On the Dancefloor.jpg. The problem is that my copy of the CD has a different cover image... Deano 08:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Song List

I think the song list is unnecessary now, a more comprehensive list of demos in the Discography section would be better, especially as many songs in the General List have actually been recorded.

--Ebz 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. If someone could sort that out that'd be sweet. Deano 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the next single is called 'When The Sun Goes Down' not 'Sun Goes Down'. How can we change this?

No it is not - look at the external links relating to it. It doesn't need to be changed. Deano 18:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison Sources

Sources for:

Also, Alex Turner namechecks Pulp and Mike Skinner in an interview somewhere.

The references could go inline in the intro, but they make it look a bit noisy to my little eye.

chocolateboy 07:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell added Thundercats and Tintin? Those are both childrens shows! I know they're also band names, but at least link it to the bands' wikis. Or, if the wikis don't exist, make them. I'm removing those comparisons for now. Vash Aurion 03:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

fansites

why are they being removed? theres no reason to keep doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthrt (talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

The mardy-bum is arguabl;y spam. the other linkl is duplicated not 10 lines above. 2 looks like commercialsim, SqueakBox 23:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

please stop removing the external links. just because you "think" a site might be spam or 'commercialsim' doesn't mean that it is. this isn't a place for your unintelligent opinions. the two links have not been previously referenced on the page. --Anthrt 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. GeeJo (t) (c) •  17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt and Alex

Did Matt and Alex meet at Barnsley College in 2002 like the article says, I don't think so.. .they were at school together, can someone clarify. - Simon 03:08, 28 January 2006

The citation has a referenced link with it. Use that. Deano (Talk) 16:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam warning

Any attempts to yet again duplicate the arcticmonkeys.com link will betreated as spam and the editor as a spammer. Wikipedia is not a web directory, SqueakBox 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read my last comment on this page which was directed towards you. The link was NOT DUPLICATED AT ALL. The two sites in question were seperate sites. www.arcticmonkeys.com and www.arctic-monkeys.com. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITES. This is not duplication. --Anthrt 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Fastest selling rock debut

Despite what The Sun and other tabloids may say the first week figures for Definetly Maybe were surpassed by Elastica's debut the following year. I can cite no references on the internet for exact figures but a google search for elastica + "Fastest selling debut album" will show over 200 results. Before Oasis the record was held by Suede and Frankie Goes To Hollywood. --MitchellStirling 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is confusing. I thought Hear'say's debut had the biggest first week sales. Is it not Oasis who had the previous record for first day sales? I've had a quick look on google but I can't find a definite answer. --Fozi999 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked at the BBC link from the article and it says that if it sells more than Hear'say then it's the fastest selling album in the UK ever. Surely that's the only point that needs to be made instead of confusing things with specific genres? --Fozi999 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Oasis reference was mentioned a lot as the record was not expected to surpass they Hear'say figures and so the press at the start of the week were saying it was set to be the biggest selling UK rock debut beating Oasis' record. I just wanted to correct that mistake but removing it all together isn't going to bother me. MitchellStirling 05:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've chnaged the paragraph now to remove the reference to fastest selling rock debut. I've also done a bit of a general tidy and removed some of the unnecessary duplication of links. It's still not perfect though. --Fozi999 15:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It was quite simple really - Hear'say's PopStars was the fastest selling debut album in general, with c.306,000 copies sold in a week. Definitely Maybe was (apparently) the fastest selling debut rock album in history with c.55,000 copies sold in its first week. This record was beaten by AMs on first day sales alone. I think the article should mention this fact to put into context how unprecendented this feat is. Deano (Talk) 18:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever you want to do. I was more interested in making sure that the paragraph wasn't as confusing. Also, if you're going to remove some American Commas you need to remove the rest. I don't care if they're there are not just as long as the article keeps the same standards. Finally, why use that paragraph structure? Again, I'm not really that bothered, I just don't understand the benefits over a typical article layout. Thanks. --Fozi999 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I removed all the American commas when I did it originally - I can't see any more. The paragraph structure it this format is (IMHO) better that the standard because it better illustrates that the band's history is intertwined and that each overlaps with the others - they are not separate entities. Separate entities begin at the first "==/==" marker. Deano (Talk) 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Definitely Maybe figures are actually 55,000 on the first day and around 110,000 for the first week. Elastica's debut sold just under 120,000 in it's first week. MitchellStirling 01:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Looking at http://www.everyhit.com/recordalb.html (May 8, 2006) under Fastest Selling Album we have:-
--Befuddled Steve 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Not questioning the nature of the vandalism, but what does WITM8 mean, if anything? Anand 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It means WITM8

There was some major vandalism today which i've reverted but this edit was lost in the process:
"The title of their debut album is a quote, spoken by the main character of 1958 novel Saturday Night and Sunday Morning by British writer Alan Sillitoe, adapted to a film starring Albert Finney in 1960."
It was originally put into the introduction but I don't think it's suitable there. I'm putting it here so that if anyone wants to include it they can.
As for WITM8, I think it means "what is that mate". --Fozi999 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Movie

What should we do about the movies that the band is making for "When the Sun Goes Down"? In case you don't know, they're making two movies that tell the story of the song in two different perspectives.

If you have enough reliable information then feel free to add it in a new or relevant section. I was going to wait till more information became available one way or another. Deano (Talk) 14:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm turning Alex Turner (musician) and Matthew Helders into redirects as neither currently justifies their own article. Here's the content so that the notable elements can be included in this article once it's unprotected. —Whouk (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex Turner (born January 1986) is the lead singer, guitarist and songwriter for Sheffield-based indie band Arctic Monkeys. He attended Barnsley College along with the band's drummer Matt Helders.

In a November 2005 survey by music magazine NME, Turner was declared "coolest person on the planet" (much to Turner's distaste).

Very little is known of Alex Turner's personal life, other than that his father is a music teacher and his mother teaches German.

Matthew "The Cat" Helders is the drummer for the Arctic Monkeys. He was born in 1986, and only took up the drums to be in the band.

He sings backing vocals on the Arctic Monkeys album Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, most notably in 'You Probably Couldn't See For The Lights But You Were Looking Straight at Me' and the line 'cold as the night' in I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor (in the music video for this song, Helders notoriously winks at the camera, a clip which is featured on the E4 Music advert). Helders also flaunts his tremendous singing talents in the band's infamous Radio 1 performance of Love Machine (originally by Girls Aloud), even if he does forget the lines.

In the band's recent single, their second UK number one, When The Sun Goes Down, he appears prominently in the video, turning down a 'girl of the night', the subject of the song.

Helders is widely regarded as the joker of the band and is a hugely popular character: loved by fans for his silly sailor hats, furious winking and "bad boy" reputation (the little devil recently admitted to owning a brand new Vauxhaull Corsa).


Actually, the page is only Semi-Protected, so I've included some of the content - i.e. the relevant non fan cruft stuff - in a new 'members' section. This could do with expansion, however, and I'm not sure about whether there really should have been a redirect anyway, paticularly for Alex Turner, who's NME coolest person award shows a wider notoriety than as just a band memeber. Robdurbar 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm biased, but I think this a fairly informative Q&A interview with Matt of the Arctic Monkeys. Any chance at putting it in the external links? http://www.prefixmag.com/features/A/Arctic-Monkeys/255

I'll put it in as a reference. It's a good interview... they're pretty rare with the Monkeys. DJR (Talk) 11:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Influences

A section on the band's influences please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.13.28 (talk • contribs) .

The addition of an "influences" section just ends up becoming a huge list of bands. Relevant influences are mentioned in the opening paragraph - other than that there is no point creating a list of something that can never be definitive. DJR (Talk) 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair though it mentions their contemporaries and not their influences. I can understand the need not to waste space in the article but actually I am not asking who they sound like. As I understand it they grew up listening to hip hop and so it would not be a huge list of bands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.13.28 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Note: I added the contemporaries page a while ago. It's a lot easier to compile contemporaries than influences, but I think it's fair to say that both Oasis and the Strokes are influences. Oasis was reportedly their favorite band at a young age (10 or so), and I'm pretty sure they started as a Strokes cover band.

If you can provide a reference citing the said influences then it can probably be worked in. DJR (Talk) 18:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Brit Awards

Worth noting that on the night of the Brit awards,when the band won best breakthrough act, their acceptance video (they weren't there in person) featured that bloke from we are scientists accepting their award, rather embarassing the clueless organisers. This is probably worth a mention on the subject of them avoiding the spotlight/being cheeky chappies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.171.179 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Done - here. Found a good reference too. DJR (Talk) 18:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

US debut

I just added the information about the American debut. - Vash —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vash Aurion (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 March 2006.

New Single

Please STOP removing this, it IS accurate. See www.newuksinglerelease.co.uk 'coming soon' section if you don't believe me. Mjefm 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The said web-site does not cite its sources, and therefore has no encyclopedic basis for its content. However, I found a more reliable reference and so "A View from the Afternoon" can remain for now. DJR (Talk) 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oasis like?

Would it be fair to put in something about the simularities between the two bands. Huge fame following debut albums and the arrogance that insued(NME Awards is one example). Obviously Oasis are better, but the AM are like a mdern day 'Oasis of '94-'96'.--Play Brian Moore 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions about arrogance or Oasis being better violate WP:NPOV. However, if you think more content could be added then feel free to do it - this is a wiki after all! DJR (Talk) 16:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There was an article floating around the internet that said the Arctic Monkeys band members liked Oasis when they were little. I guess we could start an influences section based on that.

WAY TOO LONG

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE SHORTEN THIS INDULGENT AND OVERLONG ENTRY? Opinions?

User:Simon 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No. DJR (Talk) 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not too long though. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which are longer. Check out Mozilla Firefox. It wouldn't be a featured article if it's length was a problem. --Nathan (Talk) 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But they are a relatively new band with a lot to come to them. This is just not concise enough. User:Simon 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopediae are not meant to be concise, they are meant to be definitive. It is not that this article is too long, but that comparative articles are too short. DJR (Talk) 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2006 UK Tour

In section "April 2006 UK Tour" The two ticket sales rates are contradictory. Can anyone give a source? Djh

They don't contradict - "1 hour" refers to advanced tickets, while 10 minutes refers to general release. However, references for both would be quite good. DJR (Talk) 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah my mistake. Agreed the references would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djh (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 March 2006.

Discography

I added the thumbnail version of the album in the discography section. Tell me if you guys want me to do the same for the EPs and singles. Also, we really need to clean up this discussion page.... I just added it for Five Minutes and the singles anyway. No need to thank me (but you can if you want!) - Vash (Talk)

Nice job - looks cool. I corrected a couple of small formatting errors on the singles... but yeah it's a lot better now! Thanks! DJR (Talk) 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Television Appearances

I just noticed that someone removed the description of the SNL segment. Who did it and why? Until further notice and a good reason for it not to be there, I'm putting it back.Vash Aurion 08:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I did it because it's all pretty trivial in terms of an encyclopedia. It 2 years time no one will care about what it said on the bass drum of the performance, or exactly what Turner said to the crowd. A user commented earlier that this article was too detailed - obviously I disagreed but it was on the basis that all the information is of encylopedic importance. The SNL stuff isn't. DJR (Talk) 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree that in that light, your reasoning is very valid. What I want to stay with the SNL stuff is that the band showed a certain disdain for the audience, which was apparrent in how they left the stage before the last note finished. But you're right in saying that what it said on the bass drum doesn't matter. Vash Aurion 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I've rationalised that paragraph a bit - made the meaning a bit clearer and added a reference. I think it's ok for now. DJR (Talk) 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the "not encyclopedic" accusations of a television appearance. People are still referring to the Beatles performance on the Ed Sullivan Show, and Nirvana singing Teen Spirit on Top of the Pops. Maybe this performance could turn out to be of equal importance in several years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca7147 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 June 2006
Yeah exactly - hence why the section is still there and hasn't been completely deleted. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 09:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sub par article...

Comes to show how kids with half a brain or musical taste but plenty of time in their hand can dominate wikipedia form their mom's basement pc, pathetic, while other important artists get a few paragraphs we get a diatribe on these guys that reads like a press statement from some record exec. Won't bother correcting anything, it's beyond me, just leaving this note for the discerning reader, because the talk pages are for me equally important. 87.202.16.165 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, considering many bands with extensive history have far smaller entries this article is nothing but over zealous fans writing about what they want to write, not what people want to read. 203.216.0.150 02:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right, if Elton John, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones had this much detail at the same stage of their career their articles would be tens of thousands of lines long. This is indulgent. Brettr 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All bands should have articles this long at this stage of their career. Unfortunately, they do not. This is an example of what all new band's articles should be like - not the other way around. DJR (Talk) 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why this article is so long is because of this band's route to fame. Arctic Monkeys not only use the internet to build their fan following, but they are fortunate enough to exist in an age where news and information travels quickly. I'm sure if the Beatles had started out in an age of broadband internet and wikipedia, their article would be massive too.Vash Aurion 19:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Chart Position ?????????????

why and who is tackin them away from the album? if took me ages to get them and the sales part above the album ??????? Bobo6balde66 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove the information but I'm guessing it was done because detailed chart information is probably better suited to the article on the album itself. Perhaps only the places where a release has reached number 1 should be listed? --Fozi999 16:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I did it - this article is about the band Arctic Monkeys. Detailed statistics such as those belong on the album's article, which is where they have been moved to. DJR (Talk) 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

o right sorry im a begginer u no Bobo6balde66 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed 'Contemporaries' section

I've removed the below section. It seems to me to be a random selection of NME-endorsed bands. What on earth do Interpol have to do with AM? If someone would like to reinstate this with something more accurate, fine, but as it stands its irrelevant, inaccurate and misleading. Damiancorrigan 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Contemporaries

Cleared out text again...

To summarize: Ok, so we agreed it would be cool if all the other art articles had this for consistency. And now I agree that going through every musician's article would be just way to tedious for this section, and it was just becoming a way for people to push bands they liked on the masses. So yeah, it's gone for now.Vash Aurion 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad we've agreed. But can you please not delete parts of the debate before the discussion is finished? There are plenty of older discussions that are long over, they can be cleaned out, but as this one is (was) ongoing, it shouldn't be cleared. This isn't a private MSN messenger chat, other people may want to read the previous comments - they might want to join in. Damiancorrigan 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Singles and Albums Chronologies

Why is Five Minutes With The Arctic Monkeys page in the albums chronology? It should be in the singles chronology. People mistakenly think that if the name of a two- or three- track release does not contain the name of one of the songs, then it is an EP - this is wrong, I forget the exact definition, but EPs are longer than singles. Five Minutes With... would have been eligible for the singles chart and should be credited as such. Damiancorrigan 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The band themselves called it an EP in some interview somewhere - it only qualified as a single because it was so short. The band have only released 2 singles. DJR (Talk) 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it counts as an EP because AM call it one, but EPs in general are eligible for the singles charts, not the album charts. The rules came in a few years ago that said a single only counts for the charts if it is three tracks or less. So... Five Minutes With... DEFINITELY counts as a single; WTFAAM is less clear, as it is NOT eligible for the singles charts, but it is more akin to a single than an album
I speak a lot of sense.Damiancorrigan 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
but EPs in general are eligible for the singles charts, not the album charts - I agree entirely, but the point is that an EP is still an EP even if it is elegible for the singles charts. Coldplay's Safety EP would have qualified in the single charts too, but it is still an EP. DJR (Talk) 17:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"it is still an EP". OK, but it's in the albums chronology. I don't mind if you call it a single, an EP or a purple banana, it doesn't belong in the albums chronology. Start an EPs chronology if you want, but that would only confuse matters - no matter how inadequate you think the current two chronologies may be, it DOESN'T belong in the albums chronology. Are we not agreed on that? Damiancorrigan 21:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably... the album/EP combined chronology was taken from Coldplay... but they have now separated albums and EPs and singles into 3 separate chronologies. I think, looking again, it would probably be fair enough to put the EPs within the singles chronology given the nature of AM EPs... but they should maintain the EP format. I'll sort that out now. DJR (Talk) 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
So, to cut a long story short: "Yes, Damian, you are right". ;o) Sorry if I hadn't made my opinion clear from the start, I thought I had. Damiancorrigan 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha - I guess that is what it comes down to! I thought you meant that EPs themselves should be singles... rather than what you actually meant about chronologies... oh well! DJR (Talk) 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


'Criticism' criticism

The citation for the article that calles the Arctic Monkeys a ripoff/prepackaged act doesn't link to a working article. It just gives me a page to subscribe to the Guardian. Can someone get working link going? We can't have a citation that forces people to pay just to read it.

The link DOES work, but it is to Media Guardian, which requires 'registration', not subscription. If you put your details in you can get access, you don't need to pay. Damiancorrigan 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alex' girlfriend

IP 82.198.250.74 and others in the same group have been spamming vandalism all night. Can anyone source this claim that Alex' girlfriend is called Chloe? - Richardcavell 11:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been going on for at least a week. I have no idea whether it's true or not but I don't think it needs to be mentioned anyway. Could we use that restriction where only registered users can edit an article? I think it's the Sprotected template. The vandalism I've seen has been from IPs except for one instance so it should reduce further vandalism. --Fozi999 12:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but we got an admin to block that IP range. If it happens again, notify us and we can deal with it. - Richardcavell 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Indie

The Arctic Monkeys are indie in both the Brit and Worldwide sense of the word; they are signed to an indie record label, Domino Records, and play music in the style of indie rock (similar in some ways to US alternative rock). smurrayinchester (User), (Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indie is not a synonym for 'unsuccessful'. Damiancorrigan 18:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet,
Indie (music)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In popular music, indie music (from independent) is any of a number of genres, scenes, subcultures and stylistic and cultural attributes, characterised by perceived independence from commercial pop music and mainstream culture and an autonomous, do-it-yourself (DIY) approach.
Independence from mainstream culture, Arctic Monkeys are being mentioned on Wiki, because of the fact that they are mainstream.They are the anti-thesis of indie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.229.104 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 May 2006
Perhaps you should consult indie rock instead. This is the reason why I hate musical genres. They all overlap and just result in edit wars. DJR (Talk) 18:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Is their world domination through mp3 downloads and MySpace not "an autonomous, do-it-yourself (DIY) approach"? Damiancorrigan 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NME Awards Speech/Criticism

As an AM fan, I'm a little perturbed by the accusation that AT was arrogant upon collecting his award. He was making a point against the NME writing too much about his band. It went something like - 'you can't write about something that much and not give us best British band . . . know what I mean'. Sardonic, sarcastic, whatever. But get it right! PLEASE CLEAN UP OR GET RID. User:saveourcity 23:22, 01 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno who added it originally, but if you're unhappy with the neutrality of it then then feel free to change it yourself. I didn't watch the show so I'm not going to change it. DJR (Talk) 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"money-grabbing" paragraph

Currently reads as:

"On top of this, the release of the EP Who the Fuck Are Arctic Monkeys just three months after their record-breaking debut album has also been criticised by some, who have seen it as "money-grabbing" and "cashing in on their success" [4]. However, the band have stated their reluctance to "live off old records", and countered that they regularly release new music not to make money, but to avoid the "boredom" of "spending three years touring on one album" [5]."

Part of the WP:NPOV policy is that all arguments should be balanced and take into account all points of view. In this case, the accusation is that Arctic Monkeys release new music regularly purely to make more money and cash in on the success of their original record. The rebuttle is that, in fact, they release new music so that they don't have to play the same songs over and over again. The fact that money is not mentioned is irrelevant - it is still the counter-argument. Cook is implicitly arguing against any "money-making" suggestion, as explained. DJR (Talk) 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


EMI Deal

Apparently, Artctic Monkeys lies about the EMI deal. In my country (Indonesia) you could see many EMI words in their CD case (all songs published by EMI, www.emimusic.com, and so on). I would lie to show you the pictures, but i don't know how. anyone can help me? William kadalkidal 05:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just click "upload file" on the toolbox on the left hand side of the page and you will be able to upload images from your hard drive. It is probable that EMI are simply the distributing label of Domino in countries where Domino does not have a presence themselves... but it will be interesting to see the image. DJR (Talk) 09:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Article status

The quality of this article is improving quite a lot - almost everything is referenced and there is very little POV. However, it has occurred to me that this page will constantly evolve while the band are around, so it cannot really achieve featured status for the foreseeable future. However, it could be a "good article"... anyone agree it is worth investigating? In any case, it will be interesting to see what a non-contributing editor thinks of the standard. DJR (Talk) 11:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

split article

Hi - as you may have noticed I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the last few days, and it's grown a fair bit in size. In order to keep the article within Wikipedia's recommended size limits but without losing content, I propose outsourcing certain parts into new, separate articles. I've given it some thought, and I propose creating two new articles:- Arctic Monkeys members and Arctic Monkeys tour history. The reasons for my choice are twofold - firstly they are areas that involve very little overlap in their current form and will thus avoid repetition. Secondly, these are the two areas of this article that are least necessary within an article about that band, indeed there is always the opportunity to move content about the members onto their own individual pages.

If unopposed this weekend, I will be bold and do it myself. Cheers, DJR (Talk) 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I was actually thinking of suggesting something similar myself, especially for the tours section. --Fozi999 09:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've done the deed... I think it is a lot better as it also gives the opportunity to give more comprehensive details of significant events in a tour. Any dissenting voices? COME ON ENGLAND! DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 10:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

'Myspace' controversy...

It was widely reported that AM's sucess came from promoting their songs on MySpace. However, I have recently read an article that one of the members clearly states they had never heard of MySpace until they read about themselves in papers etc, and that their MySpace page was either set up by the PR guys in the record label, or fans of the band. I have been looking for the article but I can't find it, so I have not contributed to this Wiki. H/e, If someone could back this up, I think it merits a mention on the Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macca7174 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 June 2006.

The MySpace reports largely came from America where MySpace is the fourth most visited site on the internet. The verifiable information we have is that the band themselves are complete technophobes and did not do anything themselves. However, the demo CDs that they gave away were ripped onto PCs and shared peer-to-peer online. At the same time, Mark Bull made "Beneath the Boardwalk" available for free download on his site. MySpace does not come into it, and if you check out their MySpace site, you will notice that they have been members since August 2006 - a time when they had already signed to Domino Records. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've changed that paragraph a bit now - I think it explains the MySpace situation a bit better and has a couple of good references. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 12:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Notes

  • The members in the intro should prosed
  • The refs should look like this -
.<ref>
  • Not
</ref>.
OKay, I've done that; anything else? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The ref thing, it should be -
.<ref>
Not
. <ref>
The space will annoy me. ;) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Done. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 06:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Little niggle

I find it a little overblown to say they went down in history for being the first band to win "Best British Band" and "Best New Band" at the 2006 NME Awards. A great achivement no doubt but seeing as the NME awards aren't as well known as other awards I think it should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.202.160 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 July 2006.

Yeah I'd agree with this. Saveourcity
"went down in history" does seem a bit much. I've changed the wording but the fact deserves a mention one way or another. DJR (T) 22:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What would you say...

What would you say sound likes the Arctic Monkeys? Becasue honestlysome of these other indie bands make my ears bleed, like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. So, recomend me some bands that sound similiar to Arctic Monkeys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.12 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 July 2006.

mate, look for New Yorkshire bands Milburn, Bromheads Jacket, little man tate, Reverend & The Makers(it is rumoured that The Rev ghost wrote Fake Tales and A Certain Romance) - they all have their own sound but similar to Arcitcs
www.myspace.com/milburnmusic
www.myspace.com/bromheadsjacket
www.littlemantate.co.uk
www.iamreverend.com
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.9.203.12 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 August 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arctic_Monkeys/Archive_1&oldid=1112825747"