Talk:Crass/archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

76-77-76-77

Ugh! Why are Crass's own words of self-importance on the Crass page? I thought this was an "encyclopedia," not an autobiography.

Would the person who posted the laborious "liner notes" please remove them, or at least edit, edit, edit...

Thank you.

replaced Crass history with a link to external site with the same text.

to those who keep changing the date of crass' formation to 1976, please note the following from their website at http://www.southern.com/southern/band/CRASS/

"Steve and Penny had been writing and playing together since early '77, but it wasn't until Summer of that year that we had begged, borrowed and stolen enough equipment to actually call ourselver a band....CRASS."quercus robur

But the page of 1976 in music said Crass was recording their demos first before they formed in 1977.

<sigh> thats because some clown who doesn't know what they are talking about has changed it from 1977 in music- again! quercus robur

I would be interested to know where the apparently persistent idea that Crass formed in 1976 comes from. According to Crass' own biography & website they clearly state that they formed in 77. This is also stated in Penny Rimbaud's autobiography, and their first demo, fragments of which appear on the live part of 'Christ the Album', was recorded in 'summer 1977'. quercus robur 08:26 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
It now says that they formed in 1977 but recorded their first demos in 1976. Unless there's something faulty with my understanding of what it is to "form", this isn't possible, so I'm reverting it. If Michael wants to explain this, he's welcome to do so (but he doesn't seem to be the most talkative fellow, unfortunately). --Camembert

It's true, they really did do their demos in 1976 before they started forming 1977, sir. Do not erase it when I write it again. --Michael

Where do you get the idea from that Crass recorded demo's in 1976 when according to Rimbaud's autobiography he did not even meet Steve Ignorant until 1977? BTW I'll be speaking to Gee Vaucher later this evening, if I remeber I'll ask and get this matter settled once and for all. quercus robur 19:25 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
Micheal- do you know anything at all about Crass? It certainly doesn't look like it, but whether you do or not, please do not attribute abusive comments to myself or camembert, who generally speaking know what we are talking about (I have been personal friends with Crass since 1979) and do not feel the need to become abusive or rude to others or alter other users comments in order to change their content or context. I would advise you also find out a little about your subject matter before making alterations to articles. One more citation for you, from the sleeve of Bullshit Detector volume 1: "Sometime in 1977 Rimbaud and Ignorant started messing around with a song called 'owe us a living'. They ran through it a few times and decided to form a band consisting of themselves. They called themselves Crass".
Now please either cite a reliable reference that Crass were recording demo's 'before they formed' in 1976 or leave the page alone. Thank you quercus robur 19:56 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
Has anyone heard of the demos of 1976. --Michael
No. Tuf-Kat
No, there were no demos in 76. Rimbaud & Ignorant DID NOT EVEN MEET UNTIL 1977!!!!quercus robur
Where did you hear about these 1976 demos, Michael? Perhaps this is an urban myth - in which case Wikipedia should document it... Martin
More like a Michael myth- if there were an urban myth about a 1976 Crass demo I'm sure I would have heard it, having followed the band since 1978 and known them personally since about 1979. I also did my own internet search, nothing. However if Michael can point us to a reliable source of this urban myth (yes I know that is a contradiction, I'm being tongue in cheek...) I'd be happy to stand corrected quercus robur 18:05 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
OK! Fine! - Michael

micheal, give it up with the 76 demo shit, the joke is wearing thin now. quercus robur

Oh, good lord, Michael has a new name. -- Zoe

I'm not Weezer --Michael (paraphrased)
I'm not Michael --Weezer (paraphrased)

Guess you're right. Maybe they did not record demos in 1976. I think they wrote songs in the year. -- Weezer

Nope. Read my lips, RIMBAUD AND IGNORANT DID NOT EVEN MEET UNTIL 1977!!!!!!! quercus robur 13:27 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
Guess that, Rimbaud or Ignorant must written songs in 1976 before knowing each other in 1977. But how did you know that they met in 1977? - Weezer
Penny Rimbaud is a personal friend of mine, and he told me, that's how I know. See also below. BTW, no they didn't write songs before 1977. In Rimbauds autobiography he states that 'So what' was the first song Steve Ignorant ever wrote. Rimbaud may have written stuff before Crass, but that in no way means that Crass existed before 1977. I wrote stuff when I was at school, that doesn't mean I was contributing to Wikipedia in 1977. Geez you are hard work Michael. why don't you just drop it now? quercus robur 18:06 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
Is this a ploy to get Crass' phone number or something? Sorry but you'll have to take my word that I've spoken to Penny Rimbaud and he's confirmed that, in line with his autobiography, the official Crass website, the sleeves of a number of Crass records and just about everything else ever written about Crass by anybody except Michael & 'weezer', there was no such thing as 'Crass' before 1977. In fact they were originally called Stormtrooper when they first formed, but quickly changed the name as it was 'a bit fascist sounding'. quercus robur 13:34 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps Crass and Talk:Crass should be protected... this is getting irritating. -- goatasaur

I agree quercus robur 21:46 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
Me too Slrubenstein
talk pages shouldn't be protected - unprotecting - and listing on wikipedia:protected page. Martin
Agreed in general, it was just temporary during a bout of Weezer/Michael attack... got two others to go unprotect, too. -- John Owens
Hmm, the article page here is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page as "protecting from persistant vandalism", but it wasn't protected earlier today before I did that. Which state should it be in? And shall we change Wikipedia:Protected page to reflect this? -- John Owens 00:00 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it was you that added it, just then. That clears that up, a bit. -- John Owens
Michael/Weezer's mum seems to have sent him to bed now, perhaps it's safe to unprotect Crass now? quercus robur 00:05 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I'd already done that, now that he seemed to have gone away for the moment. -- John Owens
Yeah, when you protect/unprotect a page, add/remove it to/from the list. :) Martin

Just to clarify, it appears that Michael/Weezer has signed my name to some of his comments here. I have nothing to do with those comments. It was someone else using my user name. Danny

I've just had a phone conversation with Gee Vaucher during which I asked her whether Pete Wright was ever a member of a band called Trapeze- her reply was not to the best of her knowledge... quercus robur 19:07 17 May 2003 (UTC)

NB. Just for the record, I've just spent three days at Dial House with ex members of Crass, who confirmed that Pete Wright was definately never in a band called trapeze, he was in 'some folk band' nobody can remeber the name of, but who never made any records or achieved any sort of fame. He was also the only member of Crass ever to have been in a band before being in Crass, apart from Penny Rimbaud and Gee Vaucher who had been in a performance art group called 'Exit'. quercus robur 21:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I think this has evolved into a great page! Nice work, everybody! However, I think the second paragraph in "origins" really needs work. Somebody who feels close to it want to edit that? heidimo 18:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


BTW I edited down your refernce to Stratford Mercenaries as I thought this would belong more on the Steve Ignorant page or indeed an article on the band themselves if one gets started. Cheers quercus robur 11:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a go at it. I think I'm going to give Thatcher Gate its own article because it belongs under hoaxes.-- Reverend Distopia

Thachergate

I thought I might as well give this its own subject headline.

No one has contributed to this in over a year! Anyone notice the lack of the Thatchergate Tapes? Those should be linked to both Crass and Hoaxes sections! Anyone have access to said tapes? I know they exist.

I edit this article fairly frequently (certainly within the last year!) and try to keep an eye on it for vandalism, etc- yup the Thatchergate Tapes should definately be included, I've been meaning to integrate them into the text for some time now, but it will probably mean rewriting the relevant paragraph somewhat, so I havn't done it as yet. The text of the tapes is here http://www.southern.com/southern/label/CRC/1238.html feel free to have a crack at adding something yourself!

Ok, I added a Thatchergate link, but the Thachergate article still needs to be added. Are we happy with where I stuck the paragraph? I put it under Direct Action.-- Reverend Distopia

Missing things

things currently missing from this article that need to be integrated in;

  • Stonehenge 1980 when Crass and punks at the festival were attacked by bikers. Ironic as Rimbaud had helped to set up the festival in the first place!
  • "Bloody Revolutions" benefit single for the 1979 'Persons Unknown' trial, which raised money to set up the Wapping anarchist Centre, also vioelce from SWP at the Persons Unknown benefit gig at the Conway Hall.
  • More about attempted prosecution by Tim Eggar for "How Does It Feel"
  • Obscenity charges for Penis Envy, whcih also involved Flux of Pink Indians and Dead Kennedys
  • VAT problems

quercus robur 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.furious.com/perfect/crass.html

Direct Action, 'Thatchergate' and internal debates - NPOV debate

Vandalism

Sorry, but spray painting messages onto property that you don't own, without permission of the owners is vandalism. And it's not POV to say so. I seriously doubt that band members of CRASS has permission to place graffitti on the london underground. Their "art" wasted tax payer funds for it's removal, thus diverting resources that could have been used for other purposes. This article should not glorify acts of petty criminality, by ascribing to them greater signifigance. 128.84.178.99 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should not glorify acts of petty criminality, by ascribing to them greater signifigance. This is your POV, even though many people share it. My POV, also shared by many others, is that, much like Banksy, who they predated by some 20 odd years, their graffiti was subversive, made urban environments more interesting, challenged advertising stereotypes and made people think. However such personal opinions should be left out of it as its not appropriate on wikipedia. The article should be kept NPOV, and simply stick to the facts. quercus robur
Agree with Quercusrobur - just as one person's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter', so too one person's post-situationist detournment of the urban landscape is another's mindless vandalism... just stick to the facts, ma'am, just stick to the facts, as the three blind men said to the elephant's leg.... 82.34.177.22 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Vadalising the subway was not subversive, does not make urban environments more interesting, and certainly does not challenged advertising stereotypes or make people think. All it does was waste tax payer money, and violate laws against vandalism. It is infact profoundly disrespectful to the working people who pay taxes to support public services. It was vandalism by any definition. And it's not POV or non factual to say so. 128.253.214.55 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that is your point of view. I have mine, you have yours. Both should be kept out of an NPOV article. quercus robur 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that CRASS did not vandalise the London Underground by spray painting political grafitti without permission? 132.236.176.165 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider it vandalism, but thats not the point. I'm not really interested in debating this, just ensuring that the article remains nuetral by avoiding loaded terms such as 'vandalism' which only reflect one particular point of view. quercus robur 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
At least you are honest about being intellectually dishonest. Vandalism is the exact and factual definition of what CRASS did on the london subways. Vandalism is not a loaded term, it is the course of action that members of CRASS did. I fail to see how this POV, the extant article smacks of buffing and whitewashing in that it weasels out of using plain english to describe its subject matter.. 128.84.178.102 10:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the term 'graffitti' can be described as 'weaseling', 'buffing' or 'whitewashing'. Its a factual term describing the act of spraying a message on a public wall. Its also a nuetral term. 'Vandalism' on the other hand reflects a point of view. What would be 'weaseling' would be something like; Crass sprayed graffitti on a tube station wall. Some considered this to be an act of vandalism, others however described this act as artistic and political subversion. It would be a shame if the article went in this direction though, at the moment it seems relatively 'tight' and to the point for a wikipedia article. 82.34.177.22 13:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag added

have added NPOV tag as an anon user insists on contantly re-inserting loaded and POV comments into this article, see 'vandalism' discussion above. It would be good if a 'third party' could look at this passage and decide whether the term 'vandalism' is appropriate in this context, bearing in mind the arguemnts already laid out above (and notwithstanding the personal attacks made) quercus robur 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You seriously think that describing spray painting graffiti in a subway station as vandalism is "loaded and POV"? 128.253.214.55 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I do. That is why I asked for third parties to comment and help to create a consensus, or else this will go nowhere apart from turning into an edit war. quercus robur 10:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
According to Webster's dictionary. [1] Vandalism is defined as "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property". Do you honestly beleive CRASS did not engage in willful defacement of public property? 128.84.178.83 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have stated my case. You and I will not reach consensus on this, hence the NPOV tag so that some third party can decide whether the term 'vandal' is appropriate in this context. quercus robur 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be in denial about if CRASS's actions meet the definition of vandalism. I think it would be healthy for you if you would explain how spray painting political slogan's in a subway satation is not willful defacement of public property. 128.253.214.55 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in further discussion with you, the section has been NPOV tagged, some one else can decide who is right and who is wrong on this. quercus robur 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
PS, I've just looked at your edit history, seems you have a history of trolling, vandalism and POV additions to articles with the intention of causing arguements. Sorry, life is too short for me to indulge you quercus robur 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
PPS, so you admit that you can't defend CRASS, because what they did on the london subways was vandalism and [b]you know it[/b]! 128.253.214.55 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Don't know why I'm wading into this, but I would feel that the word 'vandalism' would be appropriate if the object of the action was the devaluation of that which was being acted upon or in having no relevance achieved the same effect. "Joanie loves Chachi" scrawled on a wall is much different than a political slogan stenciled in on the Berlin Wall. The former would be vandalism, the latter may very well not be. This is, of course, open to subjective argument, and as a result I would caution against its inclusion in this article. The use of public space for the message was itself *part* of the message, even if I may not myself be in particular agreement with the message itself. Saint Mahone 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think vandalism is the correct NPOV way to describe CRASS actions since they did deface public property. Their stated reasons for doing so don't affect what members of the band actually did. Mohammed al-Khawal 07:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Vote no for vandalism. Their intent wasn't destructive, which is the implication of the loaded term. --Switch 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Did they deface public property with thier grafitti? 128.84.178.82 09:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Was it 'vandalism' when the Berlin Wall was graffited in 1989 or was that an expression of freedom from oppression? Guess it depends on your point of view, but that was public proiperty as well. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it is for wikipedia to judge, only to give the facts, not to say our opinions one way or the others 82.34.177.22 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The berlin wall was public property, people were defacing it, it was vandalism. That is a fact. CRASS defaced london subway stations, london subway stations are public property, ergo CRASS vandalised thwe subway stations. That is a fact, Wikipedia is supposed to report facts. 128.253.214.55 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
No its a point of view. Vote 'no' to including the word vandalism in this article. The whole subject as to whether graffitti is art, political comment or vandalism might be better discussed at the graffitti article but doesn't belong here 88.109.211.167 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any of the people opposing the use of the word vandalism have answered the question of "Did CRASS deface public property with their grafitti?" Mohammed al-Khawal 10:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That's because it's a question of their Point of View. PhilipPage 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The more I consider this, the more I lean against using the word here. There is sometihng of a loaded connotation to the word 'graffiti' which I don't believe applies. Equating it as such- 'definition A' meets 'situation B'- would be little different from telling me that putting my terminally ill dog down last week was 'murder.' Saint Mahone 00:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The Oxford defines "vandalism" as the "deliberate destruction or damaging of property". Crass didn't deliberately destroy or damage, so that's not vandalism. Whether or not graffiti is vandalism is not a case for this article. Once a general consensus on whether or not graffiti is vandalism has been reached, you can argue that, but not until then. --Switch 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone else has removed the 'NPOV' tag, and the troll who started this 'debate' seems to have moved on elsewhere, so can we take it as read that the NPOV tag does not belong on the section in question? quercus robur 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
NO, Crass did damage the london underground by vandalising it with political grafitti. They deliberately spray painted messages on the walls of the subway. Since their actions were not authorised by the administrators of the subway system, their defacement is vandalism. I'm really confused by why so many people are having a hard time with basic english on wikipedia. Mohammed al-Khawal 04:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
You're the one having trouble with English, mate. They did not deliberately damage the underground, because A) Whether or not it was "damaged" (caused physical harm reducing the value, operation, or usefulness) is POV; B) "deliberately" implies intent, and their intent was not to damage, it was a political message. I don't see why you don't get it. --Switch 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Why have all of my photos of Crass been deleted???? These were my pictures, used under gnu license and they've all disapperaed without any warning. I tried to restore one deleted image with no success, would the responsible person please sort this out???? quercus robur 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops looks like it was a wikipedia glitch, everything is back as it was.. quercus robur

Infobox

Have changed the image in the infobox to the Crass logo, I felt this was more appropriate as the band always argued strongly against the 'cult of the individual', and always prefered to be represented by their 'corporate logo', as it were, than by photos of the band. Hope this is OK? quercus robur 09:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. I was going to use the logo originally, but most of the other band infoboxes I saw used a pic of the band so I did it for consistency. I don't care much one way or the other. The Ungovernable Force 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Have re-protected the Crass page as still being targetted by serial vandal(s) quercus robur 16:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Have unprotected the page again, lets see how it goes this time... quercus robur 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Reprotected, what is it about this page that attracts such obsessive vandalism??? quercus robur 17:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protected. Lets hope that's enough. Rich Farmbrough 16:47 30 June 2006 (GMT).
To be honest, I like it unprotected because many admins are watching it, and it is usually the first port of call for the vandals. It's effectively a trap. The JPStalk to me 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism

As well as the usual blatant vandalism and the ho-hum tedious '1976' perpetual re-insertion, there seem to be little bits of inaccurate disinformation being sneaked into this article, I guess this needs keeping an eye on as well, maybe its time to reinstate the protection? quercus robur 11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Corporate parasitism

Roll of shame, corporate entities who have been photographed preening in Crass t-shirts as fashion item;

  • Ozzy Osborne
  • David Beckham
  • Alien Ant Farm
who cares? Certainly not any ex members of Crass, although Penny Rimbaud did tell me that he wrote to David Beckham asking that since david is obviously such a big fan of Crass would he be interested in making a donation to the Dial House appeal... needless to say he never got a reply...
I did hear that on the Beckham teeshirt the logo was done in pink sequins, which rather appeals to me I must say... quercus robur 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Irelevant links

Removed links to Chumabwamba and the EX as these bands aren't directly related to Crass, also Current 93 and Thought Crime as these were Steve Ignorant projects, not Crass projects, Thought Crime featured 'guest vocals' from Igs on a recording released in 2004, 20 years after Crass ceased operation, so hardly a 'band formed by Steve Ignorant after Crass split' quercus robur 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism...

...has started (changing image, changing year of formation to 1976), again. Just, keep an eye on the situation

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/a/Talk%7ECrass_archive01_86b8.html"