Talk:Franz Ferdinand (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Franz Ferdinand (band) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

Contents

[edit] Covers and Collaborations work

I took care of "prosifying" the covers and collaborations section, but it's still a little messy. Also, I couldn't find a place for this:

  • Andy Knowles has served as a live support member of the band, as an auxiliary keyboardist and second drummer. Knowles has not appeared on an album, but drums on "Brown Onions," an instrumental B-side on "The Fallen / L. Wells" double A-side single. He is also seen briefly in the video for "Walk Away".

Juru (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Yet

It's said that "Not Yet" might be the new album's name, because that's what was on the website, but maybe they were referring to the fact that the website is not yet done? That makes more sense to me. (92.80.229.64 talk) 13:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Fan Site link

I added our link: www.franzferdinandfans.co.uk to the link section because I think if the link of our forum is already at the official site of ff, we also should be linked here!

Thank you!

With friendly greetings! The Admin of www.franzferdinandfans.co.uk

[edit] Contemporaries

Is there really any need for this section? --InShaneee 03:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, it helps to place them within the context of a particular musical scene. 195.195.166.41 19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't done for most other artists, and there's it's original research what artists they resemble. --InShaneee 14:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Amen. I chucked it.--Esprit15d 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed two sections

I boldly removed the "influences" section, since Wikipedia prefers prose over lists, and it was already mentioned in the body of the article. I also removed "contemporaries" since that is an incredibly subjective and unmanageable list.--Esprit15d 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Prose? Explain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.53.251 (talk • contribs) .
Prose is complete sentences written out. For example Wikipedia prefers "Joe Blow has three kids: Sally, Tommy and Jenny" over a subheading that says "Jow Blow's kids" and then three bullets with the three children. This is an encyclopedia; that what separates us from sites like IMDB. Lists aren't bad, just to be avoided. --Esprit15d 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article tract?

This article look to me like it is on it's way to becoming a good article. It still needs some work on being written more like and article and less cut and pasted together. And also that notes section needs to be massively expanded. Many of the inline html references could probably be exanded into full notes. Anyone else have any idea?--Esprit15d 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more on their history and their style?

[edit] Interviews as potential sources

Franz Ferdinand interviews with Nardwuar of Canada's Much_Music area available for using as reference in the event anyone is interested. -- Xinit 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many live person interview on the free video sharing website www.youtube.com. Just search for "franz ferdinand interview" and you should find some good clips. (DJ EIK)

[edit] External Links and Fan sites

Regarding http://www.hostmybb.com/phpbb/?mforum=franzferdinand primarily. This link is being re-added by User:Chrisko692, who would appear to be the maintainer of the claimed "Official Franz Ferdinand Forum". I've removed it as it seems to be low traffic, and of a non-official or notable status, in addition to being a fansite and being submitted by the maintainer of the site.

Please check WP:EL and WP:3RR for further information, and please do comment here before replacing the link again.

Thanks -- Xinit 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the official site: http://www.franzferdinand.co.uk/. Enjoy. (DJ EIK)

[edit] Pronunciation

Is this really necessary? I think it's pretty self evident how their name is to be pronounced, and it doesn't really matter anyway. 195.195.166.31 16:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


What harm is it doing besides being useful.143.238.251.149 09:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob is pronounced B-o-B (bawb). Anything else? (lol, DJ EIK)

Oh dear. Franz Ferdinand is Franzz Fur-din-and elevenzeroonnechat / what i've done / email 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The german wikipedia reads that the bandname is not pronounced english, but german (which makes a big difference). Who is wrong? Otnememento 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick McCarthy

In one part of the article it says he's the rhythm guitarist but in another it says he's lead guitarist. Which one's correct? --82.152.193.49 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I put him in as a rhythm guitarist in the intro, because he is. All melodic, non-strummed riffs and solos are by alex, all strummed and rhythm parts are by nick. Take the opening riff of nick in this fire...it is rhythm. Now take the solo in 40'...it is lead.143.238.251.149 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I always thought of Nick McCarthy as the main guitarist. Alex always seems to kinda scive (I apologise if that's not how it's spelt!)a bit. But I suppose he is the rhythm guitarist really although he's described as the lead guitarist on their official website.


That is true, but on seeing them live, alex does al.ot more then people think. But then again, I am a drummer, and so Im not really qualified to make that decision. We need a guitarist to decide. 139.168.78.1 03:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a guitarist. :) I'm not an expert on who plays what in Franz Ferdinand however, so I'll try to provide an answer that will help you all decide for yourselves. You'll probably find that he is both a lead and rhythm guitarist. Most guitar players switch between playing rhythm (exactly what it describes - forming a rhythm and usually a kind of 'base chord' to give the song an overall key) and lead (this can encompass melodic phrases such as riffs right through to full blown guitar solos). So you'll probably agree that he would be better classed as a guitarist than trying to pin him down to one of the above classifications.

From that I consider him rhythmic. 203.51.101.76 01:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nich is mostly the rhythm guitar. Check out their fansite. Alex does mostly the solo (along with lead vocals), but has some rhythm parts as well when Nick sings (like "Fabulously Lazy" or "Van Tango"). (DJ EIK)

[edit] Genre

Franz Ferdinand are a pop band as they have so bluntly stated themselves, Alex saying he's not ashamed of it. Still a lot of people like to call thenart rock, or basically just rock. I wanted to chnage this in the article, but I just created my account and don't know how. Still, I thought I'd just put it out there.

If the band calls itself 'pop', then that only means...that the band considers itself pop. Nothing more, nothing less.. they can still be a rockband, they just don't call themselves that.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not a pop band, but Americans like to call them (and that's why Alex said that) BritPop. They are actually indie, modern British rock, and a fuse of alternative rock. They could be compared to Arctic Monkeys and Hard-Fi as well. (DJ EIK)


In my opinion, the seld-titled alkbum is art pop or art dance. The 2nd album is Indy rock.138.130.150.243 01:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The article namespace of Wikipedia is not about opinions of editors, but opinions of non-trivial sources.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 16:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they use the word pop to point out that they do not have a heavy/hard sound, rather than to distance themselves form the art rock/alternative community. Art rock is probably the best description, given their musical innovation (sure, they plundered the 80s, but they were the first to do it), style/design sense, foundation around Glasgow's Art College and their original "scene." Art pop is not label I've ever heard used - I think it's one of these encyclopedian's convenient constructions. Finally the two albums are definitely not dissimilar enough to be put in seperate genres (especially seeing as the first was one of the great kickstarts of the current UK indie community. 195.195.166.31 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Im not saying that, there genre is Indy rock. I was giving my two cents, that if you really want to be almost irrationally accurate, then one album is a mixture art music and pop music, whilst the second album is more accurately indy rock. Its just like when you say revolver is rock'n'roll, and Srgt Peppers is acid rock. All albums have differing qualities, but the general vibe is indy rock/art rock. I nver suggested that the albums should be individually treated in the genre section, I was merely provided an accurate outline. Its funny that only now Im argueing my point, I said it 5 or so months ago.138.130.150.243 01:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help they've posted recently on their site saying that they're definatly pop and always have been. I personally disagree, but that's what they want people to think. Does that help at all? BK 13th March 07

they are indie rock!!! they always have been.69.234.139.190 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indie means and has always meant independent. Sony and Epic labels are not independent labels (owned by Sony BMG) and therefore Franz Ferdinand is not an indie band except nominally in the UK with Domino. First band to plunder the 80s? That means close to nothing and isn't true besides. (moxanot)

One genre they definitely are not is "post punk revival" whatever that is. This is not a genre, it's a non-sequeter. Music is either pre-punk, punk or post-punk, not post-punk revival. As for the indie debate, well not everything has to be viewed fom a USA perspective. Their primary label is Domino (an independent). In every other European country they are distributed by an independent such as PIAS or Rough Trade. So in the USA they are distributed by Epic? So what? If you look at the front of every album, it bears the "Domino" logo, even if it has been distributed by Epic, because Domino is their label. Domino is independent ie they are an independent band.

[edit] Neatness and Such

Hey, I just cleaned this up a bit and moved the sections around a bit, to get them in a more coherent order and all.

-user:Roxysmashsir43

[edit] horse vs. archduke

Hey guys, I was reading a biography of Franz Ferdinand that is featured on it's website that states that they were named after a racehorse, so i fixed it. if you have proof that this is innacurate tell me.

I read in an article that they named themselves Franz Ferdinand because the archduke changed the world and they want to change the world through their music. It talks about it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4971318 I didn't find anything on the official site about it thoug

I've have read that they were watching a horse race and they saw a horse named the archduke. This started a conversation about archduke Franz Ferdinand. So really both of you are correct.

[edit] British or Scottish?

I've noticed a lot of edits changing "Franz Ferdinand are a Scottish rock band" to "Franz Ferdinand are a British rock band", and vice versa. Maybe we should decide on one of the two and leave a message on the main page using the <!--hidden message--> tags asking not to change it to avoid pointless edits. What do you all think? --[kazikame] 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Great plan, if you can prove either way! They live in Scotland, but they weren't born there one even brought up in Munich. If you can get people to agree which one they are then good idea if not then British stops the argument. BK

You guys are absolutely right. What people mean is that they live and write most of their songs in Glasgow, Scotland, which is part of the UK. A lot of people mistake the UK as Britian or England. Therefore some think they are just British. They are Scottish (as a band), but each one was born in a city in England! So the people in the band are English, but the band is Scottish (because they formed it while attending universities in Glasgow)! They are really cool, so it doesn't matter, but just for clarification. (DJ EIK)

Heh - I didn't notice this discussion before reverting an anonymous user's change from Scottish to British. Can those of you familiar with this please ensure that related articles are also consistent with whatever you decide for this article. For example, You Could Have It So Much Better and Franz Ferdinand (album). Thanks. Mindmatrix 15:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This came up on a channel 4 program about them. Paul said that although they aren't from Scotland, they say that the band was born in Glasgow. He said that when someone asks him where they're from, he's not going to name the birth place of every single member, but of the band. Glasgow. Scotland.


I object to wikipedia being used as a tool to assert nationalism whether british or scottish. It is obvious that it cannot be claimed that this group is Scottish. It is either Glaswegian or British. I therefore suggest that this controversial yet unimportant issue be dealt with by using the word Glaswegian. Contrary to the statement above, this does not mean Scottish. Glaswegian.

But... Glasgow is in Scotland. I wouldn't say it's 'asserting nationalism' to make the connection between being Glaswegian and being Scottish. Still, I agree that it is an unimportant issue and that as long as Glasgow as mentioned it's all good. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 07:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Paul Thomson = Scottish
Bob Hardy = English
Alex Kapranos = Greek/English
Nick McCarthy = English/German
Franz Ferdinand (band) = Scottish

Why is this so hard to understand? If a Korean pilot flew for British Airways, it wouldn't suddenly become Korean Airways.

Anyone for "Scotland-based"? That wouldn't imply any nationality for any member of the group but would show where they were formed and AFAIK still do plenty recording/writing etc. -ThomasBisset 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indie rock?

What's with the Genre being indie rock? Has noone else noticed that the are on Epic, which is owned by Sony BMG? MXMissles 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Their musical style is still indie rock, even if they aren't on an indie label. Plus, in their home country, the UK, they are on an indie label. --[kazikame] 22:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but they are signed to an indie label called "Domino Records", along with artists such as Arctic Monkeys and Test Icicles. I, personally do not like the label indie, because everyone was indie at a point or another. This is just a phase due to their recording company/label. The music is alternative rock, or modern British rock. (DJ EIK)

if you take indie as a genre, i don't think it matters if were they're signed... just aslong there music sounds indie. -- Band B 19:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i think it should be changed to alternative rock, (like the one two above). "indie" is just a status.

If someone believes the genre to be indie, they should back it up with the characteristics of the style of music. Though this isn't really possible because rap groups can be on independent labels (though they're called underground) and same with just about any other type of music. So if someone's asserting that the status of being on an independent label has something to do with the "sound" then please clarify these characterists in alignment with all the different sorts of independent label sounds, etc. --(moxanot)

[edit] Bob Hardy

It says that Bob Hardy is the bass player but he also does backing vocals though not often. Anyone else seen that so I can change it? Also (although not Bob Hardy) don't you think we should have a piece at least mentioning Andy Knowles their part-time keyboardist? He's not officially a member but he does go on tour with them sometimes and is seen in the video for Walk Away.

I've seen Bob sing occasionally when live.144.131.69.7 06:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He plays a Rickenbacker Bass. He is cool and very British. Rock on!

Very true. He made me take up bass!


[edit] Main Image

The main image on the right column is pretty unclear and fuzzy, surely a band promo shot of all four members would be better?

80.6.126.38 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because our policy states that we can only use unfree images when it's not possible to create free alternatives. --Abu Badali 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Neo-Nazi thing

At the bottom of Trivia, it says 3 of the band are known neo-nazi supporters. Is this true? There is no citation and is could be considered defamatory if not true.

James

Mmmm, I found nothing talking about it on ze intarweb and a blog post on their site condemns the neo nazis, so i'll be removing it. 75.35.217.8 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

whoops, 75.35.217.8 is me =X Maxwellstragedy 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it was just some bizarre vandalism. Giacomodalsace 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual?

The song "Michael" makes me wonder, are some members of the band gay? I am pretty sure that at least one of them has a wife. If anyone knows they could try to clear it up please.Random12345123123123 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Paul has a wife and a young kid. Nick is also married but more recently. Alex has a long-term girlfrien (eleanor put your boots on), but has said that he doesn't really care whether his partner is male or female, so I don't know whether he was trying to cause a bit of controversy or was being honest, and Bob doesn't have a girlfriend or a boyfriend. He hasn't said anything either way so who knows about him! Hope this helps to clear it up a bit.

Agreed. They're just playing gender roles like Morrissey did before them. --CountCrazy007 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The song is about a friend of the band, Michael Kasparis. [1] <-- Scrolls down to the part about Michael. 217.211.211.182 13:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for asking rather then stating i.e. being polite. A little while ago there was some kinda rude comments, so thanks for being polite! b_k 5 February 2007

Does anyone mind if we keep this conversation posted here for a little while. I think that if we leave it on here then people won't need to keep asking as this subject/question keep re-appearing. Anyone else agree? b_k 19 march 2007

Hey, I live in Glasgow...and I heard from quite a few guys I've been with that some of them were known to be gay around Glasgow...If my memory was better I would tell you which ones...Interestingly, I did meet Alex Kapranos once in Glasgow at a 1990s gig; and I half-jokingly asked "Who are you? Aren't you from a band or something?". He replied "YES, Franz Ferdinand" and then turned his back to me...What a snooty b*stard!...--Madkaffir 18:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, makes you seem more like an annoying pratt than him being snooty. What are you adding to this other than gossip?
LOL but I don't think one incident needs to result in him being a snooty b*stard!

[edit] article needs clean-up

I'm sorry but I have to say this article is poorly written, it has vandalism all over ("Franz Ferdinand is sheet ?") and the same facts are repeated numerous times (for exemple that thing about Kayne West loving the band). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.211.94.127 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Idefinate break?

Is the statement saying that they revealed planning to take an idefinate break actually true? They are doing a sound track to a film but don't have any gigs. Any backup I did actually think it was a rumour.

Thanks for removing this section. They're busy in Glasgow writing new songs. I'm pleased to say they're very much alive! B_K 19 march 2007

[edit] Synthesizer type machine.

On a YCHISMB extra video they talked about this synthesizer type device that they use and there are only three of them in the world. One is in a museum, one is with a collector, and they have the third. Anyone know what it is? (it should be added to the article. --Plankton5005 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Yep, it's an Ackuset! On their official website under videos, there's a piece about it called things we've been getting up to #3. check it out.

Yes, an Ackuset is a Swedish music mixer/recorder. It is very rare and is only owned by them (a usable one). It's almost broken, so they barely use it. But it's still sweet! (DJ EIK)

Do they really own it? I thought they just borrowed it from a museum; surely something that rare had to be insanely expensive. I don't think they own it Killachika 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope it's actually theirs as far as I know ^^ bk

it's just junk if its broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flight of the Galvatron?

How do we know the song is called this? Isn't it just an untitled vid on their myspace? U-Mos 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it's just a random title of a jam session they happened to record. Nothing too special. Killachika 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Hero II

As far as i'm aware, you can't get any franz ferdinand song on GHII for the xbox360 yet.... on on GHI for the PS1.... maybe its planned as a downloadable track? if so a source is required. Doddsie 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

There is no citation on the band watching this 'race horse' to begin the thought process of Franz Ferdinand. However there are many to support the more probable and slightly less trendy account that the name was taken from a famous Greek cigarette brand called Franz Ferdinand, that not only did Alex once smoke in Greece but the drummer Tassos Bombos famously smoked aswell. Here is probably the one of the best links:

Taking their name from a Greek brand of cigarettes smoked by drummer Tassos Bombos, The Karelia enlisted The Monochrome Set's Bid's to produce the album.

At the time, Kapranos was going by the name Alex Huntley and was joined by Bombos, bassist Glen Thomson and Allan Wylie on trumpet.

NME: http://www.nme.com/news/franz-ferdinand/17400

Reaper7 00:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks to me very very much like it says 'The Karelia' was taken from a Greek brand of cigarettes, not that 'Franz Ferdinand' was Hengler 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Karelia" is a brand of Greek cigarettes, not "Franz Ferdinand"

Use of the word "vicariously" - this should be cleared up. Here are two definitions of the word:

Felt or undergone as if one were taking part in the experience or feelings of another: "read about mountain climbing and experienced vicarious thrills."
Felt or enjoyed through imagined participation in the experience of others: a vicarious thrill.

The band were not named "vicariously" - they were not seeking the experience of being the archduke. The addition of this word is an example of verbosity (superfluity of words; wordiness).

[edit] Post Punk or Not?

What is going on here? Seems like there are two or more over-zealous users having an argument about this, one of whom has locked the page from editing, which seems a little harsh, considering there has been no debate on the discussion page. Are they really post punk revival? Wardroad (talk

Actually, checking the supporting link, the article claims to have taken its material from wikipedia itself: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (more info) and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Any changes made to the Wikipedia article will not be immediately reflected here." Surely this nullifies the validity of this supposed reference? I propose that this is one of many genres that the band could be classed under and, unless a genuine reference is provided, it should be removed. Further discussion most welcome :-) Wardroad (talk

I've added yet another reference from Rhapsody Online (a similar reference from Real.com can also be found) verifying the band's status as being acknowledged as a post-punk outfit by several such notable sources. Interestingly, whereas none of the other genres in the infobox were even referenced, only this one was removed, even though there were references supporting its inclusion in the article. Please do note that one's personal opinion has no place in Wikipedia and only verified information can be included. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your advice. I noticed, after a little research, that there seem to be a number of genres that the band have been classed under. I added them to the page. It seems that you then went on to remove them. Surely you are doing what seems to have irritated you when your genre was removed? I have added these genres back with very solid references (BBC and Guardian). Thank you for providing the Rhapsody reference. It refers to the band as "post punk" rather than "post punk revival", however - "it was as though their lean, romantic, and often danceable form of post-punk fell right from the pages of a Smash Hits from twenty years prior" - so I have altered the genre name accordingly. I hope this can be settled amicably. Healthy debate should be civil - that's when Wikipedia is at its best. Best wishes. Wardroad 14:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They're not post-punk per se, because post-punk was a musical movement that ended in the 1989s. Hence "post-punk revival". WesleyDodds 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information sources/ wording.

Ok, I'm sorry if these are annoying or over-pedantic, but they came to mind on reading the article, and it's not currently open to editing.

The singles/B-sides which are currently described in the article in terms which seem to suggest they can only be obtained as videos are all available either on CD singles or on vinyl.

The reference to the Edinburgh Book Festival seems a little off. I recall seeing one article prior to the event where Nick McCarthy was quoted describing their appearance as a songwriting session, but having attended, there was no new material. It was a talk, mainly on song structure and the origins of particular songs. Admittedly, I have no citation for this other than the evidence of my own eyes and ears, but hopefully there is some article out there.

Is there a citation for the comment about 'Not Yet' being a potential album title which clearly shows strong belief in it? Of the official site, Myspace page, and the three English-speaking fansites and two English-speaking LJ communities which I currently have access to, I've seen little to suggest that this is the case, and the reaction to the appearance of this in this article has been the cause of some bemusement. The news page of the official site has been as descrbed in the article since it was 'turned off', following several online articles about the band encouraging music piracy which were mainly based around a news entry which was described on the band Myspace as 'embarrassing'. 172.209.118.170 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

-

"hopefully there is some article out there." - Yeah there is, in the second issue of the Franz Fan Club Magazine! There's a few pages about it as far as i remember. Hope this helps 86.157.170.92 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Franz Ferdinand - You Could Have It So Much Better.PNG

Image:Franz Ferdinand - You Could Have It So Much Better.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Franz-Ferdinand.PNG

Image:Franz-Ferdinand.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Franzferdinand5 420.jpg

Image:Franzferdinand5 420.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm going to assume this is the image of the band that was being used before. Can we take care of the Wiki guidelines for this image so that we can use it again please? I don't see why it had to be changed to the black and white one currently displayed. Please change it back.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Franzferdinandlogo.png

Image:Franzferdinandlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Better.PNG

Image:Better.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Franz Ferdinand - wall.jpg

Image:Franz Ferdinand - wall.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Franz-Ferdinand.PNG

Image:Franz-Ferdinand.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fanzine Style Content

The tone of some of the writing in this article is not encyclopaedic. It has a chatty "fanzine" style, particularly the enthusiastic offerings of "paperbackwriter". Can these be re-written in an appropriate tone or removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.67.75 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Usage in the media"

Do we need this? It's poorly written, unencyclopaedic and seemingly useless. --[kazikame] 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Yummy Fur Cover.jpg

Image:Yummy Fur Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

I added the tag as there is a lot of extraneous and unreferenced material in the article which will need to be trimmed or referenced. Any takers? --John (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

The genre has been returned to a credible state with supporting references from reliable sources (BBC and Guardian). Wardroad (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop?

Are they really pop? I mean, one source says so, but that source calls them art pop, a non-exsistent genre. Why is it listed there? ThundermasterTRUC 17:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, I don't really see them as being pop at all. Sure, 'pop' in the sense of being relatively popular, and leaning towards the more accessible/'radio friendly' end of the alternative/indie/post-punk/whatever scene, but not pop in the sense it's applied to music as a genre in its own right - taking the Pop music page on here, it doesn't really describe Franz Ferdinand all that well. There are aspects which could be applied to them but they clearly don't fit amongst the examples that page gives of pop artists/songs. As above, the source doesn't actually call them 'pop' anyway, but 'art pop', whatever that may be.Hengler (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've alwasy thought, if a source makes up a genre, it's unreliable. I'll remove it until a proper source is found. 86.135.80.62 (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official website

The External links section links to both francferdinand.co.uk and .tv as "Official website". Whereas the .co.uk one seems as the "Not yet" one described in the article body, the .tv one seems more like some Sony merchandise thingy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenek.k (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Franz's Picture

We need a picture where you can see all four of their faces. It makes no sense to just show 2. Madhatter9max (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Take Me Out Video Still.jpg

Image:Take Me Out Video Still.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre Argument

There seems to be a continuous tit for tat debate about genre. There is no need to list more than one citation. If another genre has a reputable citation (ie BBC) it should probably not be removed. Personal opinion seems to be dictating the vandalism/editing. It may be easier if they were simply referred to as a rock groupWardroad (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree on banning anybody from editing for that. They're definitely post-punk (/revival), hence the stupid amount of cites for it, but I don't see any reason to list more than one or possibly two cites on a genre. If there's a good cite for them being 'art rock' as well (and it sonuds as though there is, from Wardroad's post above) then that should be there also. There's no reason to treat them as mutually exclusive, and in my opinion Franz Ferdinand fit quite nicely into both genres (post-punk/post-punk revival AND art rock). So I say they should both be there, and I have no idea why anybody could have a problem with "insisting on Franz Ferdinand being Art Rock with only one reference" - provided it's a good reference, how is it relevant that only one is provided? There's only one reference provided for indie rock as well, I don't see anybody arguing for that to be removed. Hengler (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoah there Cowboy! I'd prefer any debate to be civil, thanks. As for the debate... Well, firstly only one citation is all that is needed. Secondly if 'Post Punk' is a genre then surely 'revival' is superfluous. Are Greenday a punk 'revival' band? Are Guns N Roses a Rock 'revival' band? Is Kanye West a Hip Hop 'revival' artist? 'Revival' seems to be dismissive and patronizing. Thirdly I don't personally think they are a Post Punk band. Does that mean I should remove the genre if it has a citation? If the another editor does not personally think the band are Art Rock should they remove the genre if it has a citation? Fourthly this argument has been going on for a long long time. There are several other genres (equally as supported by citations as Indie, Art Rock or Post Punk) that could also apply to this band, such as Brit Pop etc. Again, it may be simpler to simply refer to them as "Rock". Wardroad (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I'd say there's enough of a difference between post-punk bands from decades ago and the more recent bands such as Franz Ferdinand etc., that the 'revival' tag on the end is worthwhile, although it's debatable whether or not that's really a 'genre' in itself I suppose. My preference would be for Indie, Art Rock, and Post-punk (/revival) all to be listed, as for me the band fit particularly well into those three categories (hence why I think 'revival' is necessary - FF are very much in a similar vein to other bands labelled as 'post-punk revival', but not so similar to bands labelled just 'post-punk'), and not for Brit-pop or anything similar to appear. I suppose a large part of that is just down to me picking and choosing which ones fit with my opinion of the band, which isn't very encyclopaedic, but I think there should certainly be more than "rock", as that says pretty much nothing about a band at all. (I presume the comment about civility was aimed at the guy above me, ) Hengler (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. I didn't place that particularly well - I wasn't suggesting you weren't civil. I can understand the similarity to these other bands - eg Arctic Monkeys, Killers, Futureheads etc, it's simply the label itself. The word 'revival' suggests a movement trying to recreate the sounds and fashions of a previous era, eg Rockabilly Revival or Mod Revival, whereas these bands seem, as you say, quite distinct from the originals. Maybe post-post-punk is a more suitable, but unwieldy label. Wardroad (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Wardroad of anything that happened in the past....but, I'm pretty sure the term post-punk revival fits more into the band for relevant reasons regarding time. Yeah, I think Green Day could be considered punk revival...or not even punk at all, just punk-pop, but why you might ask? well, punk as an original movement that rose as a reaction of the many things that were happening in the world socially and economically (especially in the UK) died back in 1978. Then there was this big inactivity of the punk movement...at least a lack of interest by the media or the public until Green Day came with their Dookie album which intended to have a sound similar to other punk bands back in the 70's and then other underground bands (The Offspring for example) jumped the bandwagon. Then the same thing happened with post-punk and garage rock on the 2000's, with the early examples of The Rapture, The Strokes, Chk Chk Chk, Interpol, Liars...both movements had died or made no more impact on the music industry or either evolved (post-punk turned into alternative thanks to REM and other bands like Pixies) until these new bands came trying to rescue the original sounds of the post-punk movement...but, then comes the answer to question...there needed to be a new term to differentiate these new bands from the bands of the original 70's movement, thus three terms have been invented: neo-post-punk, post-post-punk and post-punk revival (which is by far the most popular by critics, if you want you can google it) and if Franz Ferdinand was to be post-punk, then, they would have had to be formed back in the the late 70's or the earlt 80's. I also understand you with the fashion part...you might say there was no fashion related thing going on the post-punk movement but there was...many of the ex-members of of punk bands which decided to enter into the experimental terrain of post-punk had made the decision to make a reaction against the punk image in general (also mirrored in new wave).

So many of the first post-punk bands (PiL, Wire, Pere Ubu, Joy Division, GO4) had decided to have a cleaner and more sophisticated image that was the complete opposite of punk (you can check videos and images), but if you want a more clearer source of this, there's Malcom Ross from Josef K talking about the subject:

"I was quite interested in the original mod movement, and that was one of the influences in wearing suits. Again, it was a reaction to the whole dirty, long-haired thing that punk reacted to, but punk wasn't too far off it either. Punks were just as dirty. I didn't like that - I wanted some kind of dignity. We were forward looking.

None of us had ever played in groups prior to punk so it gave us clean slate. Whereas you could tell the bands who had, because they would chuck in rock guitar cliches here, there and everywhere. We never did. Paul and I were always striving to be, if not experimental, at least not cliched." (source: Josef K's myspace page or google it if you like).

So isn't this also done in this new post-punk movement? Franz Ferdinand, Interpol (especially them), Editors, The Futureheads, Maxïmo Park, The Killers, Bloc Party, Arctic Monkeys...it's all there. You can check the info. and if you're not satisfied tell me. I also noticed you removed the post-punk genre in many pages related to Franz Ferdinand (singles, albums) just leaving the indie rock reference, but I don't really think indie rock is a genre...Franz Ferdinand is indie rock because they belong to the independent rock/independent music movement. Sorry for any inconvenience in the past and I hope we can get to an agreement. The-15th (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have a debate...
Malcolm Ross's comments are particularly pertinent. His band were inspired by the Mods that went before them, but were not Mods themselves. In a similar way, FF may have been inspired to some degree by bands such as Josef K, Orange Juice or Monochrome Set, but they are not Post Punk themselves. Post Punk is a term that in many ways is simply chronological. Orange Juice, The Specials and The Pop Group are all referred to as Post Punk, yet all they really have in common is the era in which they existed (ie post '76 and God Save The Queen).
As I mentioned earlier, my main concern is with the word 'revival'. To me 'revival' can be applied to a Rockabilly revival act such as the Stray Cats or a Mod Revival act such as The Lambrettas. Both attempted to recreate the sounds and image of a previous era verbatim. This is not the case with any of this current set of bands. It may possibly be argued in the case of a band like Interpol who have a very similar sound and aesthetic to Joy Division or The Chameleons, but not in the case of FF, The Arctic Monkeys - even the Strokes or Killers. As for a band like the Cribs - I can't see any Post Punk influence there at all. If anything, they seem to be coming from a background of British DIY and US indie influences. With FF, there are many distinct influences, of which post punk is only a small part: eg Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Kinks, Can, Neu, Kraftwerk, Roxy Music, Sparks, Pulp, Captain Beefheart, even Neutral Milk Hotel (listen to Two Headed Boy and the intro of Take Me Out). They definitely did not set out to 'revive' any movement and although they have mentioned being fans of Orange Juice or The Fire Engines, they have never mentioned the words "Post Punk" in any of hundreds of interviews. This term does seem to be something which has appeared within the last year and seems to reflect a trend amongst certain (mainly US, mainly amateur) critics, rather than any bands themselves.
As for Indie Rock, well that seems a more bona-fide genre than PPR. You're right, FF are of that genre because they are signed to Domino - an indie. Technically, this should not reflect the sound of a band, but a recognised genre has evolved since the '80s with bands like the Smiths, Wedding Present, Soup Dragons and Primal Scream, then over the years, encompassing everything from Oasis and The Libertines to Modest Mouse and Death Cab For Cutie. Indie is also more of a UK term. In the US, bands of this type are usually referred to as alternative. Both are generic terms that refer to bands that are generally outside the perceived mainstream, although even this rule seems perverse when bands such as REM, Nirvana or The Cure become mainstream with their sales, yet retain the indie/alternative tag.
Anyway, back to post punk. I concede that FF may have been influenced by a few post punk bands (amongst many other influences), but do you honestly believe that FF formed with the intention of reviving a fleeting music scene from 25 years earlier? They made many (often spurious) claims such as wanting to make girls dance or whatever, but the intention of reviving post punk was not one of them. Wardroad (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...Franz Ferdinand and many other bands have stated or denied the post-punk revival term or have never been really explicit on being from that genre but the statements they give like making "danceable music for girls" might be really different to their internal purpose, to what the members actually might have discussed inside the group...because we know the post-punk revival thing has been going around since the late 90's and the most probable thing is that the band has been aware of the underground (at least back then) musical landscape...or it might also have been a musical coincidence (just like old post-punk, were many bands were formed around the same time with the intention of mixing disco, punk and funk or giving punk an experimental depth), but I think they are pretty self-aware of what they want to do, I mean, Alex Kapranos was a member of the older post-punk revival band (probably one of the first) The Yummy Fur.

Th eother thing is that they could be considered unintentionally as part of a new post-punk movement because in a way they are part of a big reaction and backlash against the many punk-pop and neo-punk groups that came on to the mainstream, many of the bands that started to be pioneers of the new movement had the intention of being a reaction...or to create an alternative to the music at the turn of the century. Many others were self-conscious about their influences or what they wanted to do (I once read an interview of The Strokes where they were asked to why do you want to revive the post-punk/new wave sound of the 80's...to which they responded that they thought that new wave music was great but that it was a shame that it had died and that it really needed to come back...I swear I did read it and I'll try to get a hold of it if it wasn't deleted. Others like The Faint are aware that they want to revive new wave but without being retro or low tech or being another clone of Duran Duran ; they take the techonology of the 21st century to make new wave as a reaction to punk once again)...so, even if these bands deny that they are post-punk revival, they fit perfectly into the term because they are a reaction to the neo-punk hype and because they can't be confused with the older post-punk bands, that's why there's a neccesity of having a term like post-punk revival...it's not because they want to capture an exact post-punk sound (though many bands do...like Killers or The Rapture).

You know, post-punk bands also had many different influences too...Bauhaus loved glam rock, Gang of Four liked The Velvet Underground (you can hear the influence of the Velvet Underground track "The Gift" on Anthrax), Echo & The Bunnymen were maninly inspired by psychedelia and The Doors (check out the first version of Read it in Books from their first single)...it's the same thing with Franz Ferdinand, they are inspired by post-punk and non post-punk acts or The Futureheads which range influences as diverse as the Art Rock of Kate Bush, the rock of Queen to the post-hardcore of Fugazi...still, they manage to be a reaction to neo-punk or at least an interesting alternative that wants to take punk further once again. The-15th (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I lean towards All Music Guide, which lists the band's genres as indie rock and "New Wave/Post-punk revival". In contrast I'm wary of random genre reference in news items about the band, because having gone through many of the articles cited here they are used haphazardly. This is because the BBC doesn't really care what the band's genre is; they are interested in what the band is doing. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(I still agree with WesleyDodds) Then I decide we all vote so we can end this argument once and for all (mayority wins). I vote for Franz Ferdinand's genre being listed as Post-punk revival/Indie rock as there are even more references out there in the Internet and Magazines that refer them as such. The-15th (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply e-mail the band via their website and ask what their preferred genre is? Just a thought. (98.201.89.57 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC))