Talk:Madness (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madness (band) article.
Article policies
Good article Madness (band) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


Contents

[edit] Featured Article

Is this article ready to be nominated to be a FA?

Not really, there are quite a few parts which need to be improved upon. I nomonated it a few months ago when the article was in a better state and it failed. I'm going to improve it to FA over the summer hopefully.Sam Orchard (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know anything about rules for writing on wikipedia, but if you have any questions about the band I can probably help you out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take It Or Leave It

The Madness Movie, Take it or leave it; is not noted! It is an outrage!

It is NOW, but please help to make it better! I have a lot of info books about Madness and Take it or leave it, but my english is far from perfect. I write the fact, YOU "put the words right"! Madfan87 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now once again not noted? Why did it get removed?

[edit] Feargal Sharkey

Are you sure Feargal Sharkey has enough to do with madness to be called an associated act? They have done many other collaborations, wich are not noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reunited

Uuuuh....they reformed in the late 90s, hello? I don't know anything other than this to finish the article, do it please. 13:30, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

How is the neutarlity of this article disputed?

My issue wasn't so much with the neutrality of the facts presented as with the language. Things like "Suggs, Carl, Lee and Chris teamed up under the imaginative name of The Madness" and "criminally overlooked by the public and the first ever Madness single not to chart" should go; if facts can be cited to replace these opinions it would be better than just plain removing them, so I didn't remove them myself. --Weyes 23:19, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I'll see if I can change anything. Falcolombardi87 17:42, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy up most of the article. See what you think. Falcolombardi87 20:34, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Looks pretty NPOV to me now. Why is this tagged as wikify? That's the reason I hit this article in the first place, but it looks wikified already. Davelong 12:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether all the formatting for band names/album names/song names etc. is correct. Falcolombardi87 19:59, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I think I've followed the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) correctly and also tidied up a couple of minor pieces, it's looking pretty good to me now so I removed the NPOV and cleanup tags. Davelong 19:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yup, looking good. Thanks! --Weyes 08:34, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

"The crowd danced so much that an earth tremor of over 4.5 on the Richter scale was recorded during the song One Step Beyond."

Quite apart from suspecting this to be nonsense, where's the source? Also POV throughout this article, I'll make some minor edits, but it's hard to know where to start.

Citation added. It was also mentioned in the Madstock sleevenotes. At the time nearby residents were a bit miffed what with bits of masonry falling off their houses.

"The band's videos were highly creative and entertaining, which was partially responsible for their heavy inclusion on early MTV and on the BBC's Top of the Pops. The videos relied on humour and storytelling to an unusual extent, producing a product that stood alone as creative output, not just slick promotional material."

Certainly I think their videos are worthy of some note, but does this say anything?

"The show run until August 2003 due to poor ticket sales, a sad time as the show was deemed a success by critics and audiences alike"

I know little of the show other than it exists, could someone help with this? Burchill 11:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following text from the bottom of the bullet-pointed section:

  In its Spanish TV spot campaign  Bacardi  : "Hola Mañana" uses like the jingle with band arregls
  One Step Beyond tones and the actors makes pass like the band members did it in 
  the song video.

I feel that it does not present any new information in its current state; if anyone can figure out what it means please clean it up and re-insert. Cheers --^pirate 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a tv ad for bacardi rum that use the one step beyond as a jingle

I have a question. this may seem stupid to some people but there are seven people on the featured album cover yet only six members of the band are listed, as far as i can tell

This anomaly has now been rectified (seven original members are all mentioned).
Derek R Bullamore 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movies

How about

Take It or Leave It
Complete Madness
Utter Madness
Divine Madness
Madness at Madstock

A filmography could be nice. Simplicius 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan talk and encyclopedias

OK as far as it goes, but a fan manual is not an encyclopedia. Why did they choose to sing this kind of music? What did they sing about? What sections of the public liked them most ? And - if I remember correctly - they had some involvement in supporting political causes... Why and how ? If someone can help I would be very grateful Johncmullen1960 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Needs a lot of work

There are way too many pointless facts in this, such as dates when they toured in 2005, one off appearences, etc. In the grand scheme of things, it just seems out of place. There is way too much post 2000 stuff. Their heyday was the 80s, but there seems to be a lot more information about the last few years. Surely there's no need for a seperate section about 2004-05, 06, 07, etc. We just need one paragraph to sum up the events of the 2000s, and maybe a different section regarding The Dangermen.

I think at least a partial re-write is needed. I've got quite a lot of knowledge regarding the band, so I may begin working on the article soon, because it's just not up to scratch.Sam Orchard 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the 2000s sections that should be deleted or reworded. Then once the individual parts are shortened, they should probably be merged together. I copy edited the 2007 section and deleted some unimportant trivia and content that was either a prediction or a rumour. Spylab 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Right, I've been working on a new article in my spare time. I've finished my uni exams now so I can hopefully finish it, and ensure everything is referenced.

So far I have Madness' career split into several sections... "Formation", "Early Success", "Change of Direction", "Decline and Breakup" and "Reunion". Furthermore I've written sections regarding Controversy and The Dangermen. Does anyone have any suggestions or objections to any of the sections I've included? Sam Orchard 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dangermen and The Madness

Not sure I agree with the opening line of this article, stating that they were known as The Madness and The Dangermen. The Madness was a different band which contained some of the members from Madness. They were originally going to be called a totally different name, but I assume they chose "The Madness" for commcercial reasons. But it definitely was not Madness.

The Dangermen was an alias the band used while performing small scale concerts. When they released the dangermen sessions, they were still under the name of "Madness", so personally, I don't think it can be assumed that they changed their band's name. Sam Orchard 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • After thinking about it for a while, I think the best option is to simply add a section in the article explaining the whole Dangermen alias. I think The Madness needs a new article entirely, as they were NOT Madness, and their work is not even recognised on the official Madness website. Sam Orchard 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Spylab 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Rewrite

I've just completed a rewrite for the article, with the band's formation and history going into a lot more detail. I've referenced as much as possible, but if you feel there are things that need to be referenced, then please bring it to attention.

I'd appreciate it if any large scale edits were discussed here first. If anyone thinks they can further add or improve the article, then please do so, as long as the information is notable and not trivial. Single appearences are not notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Madness have made hundreds of appearences on TV shows over the years. Just because an appearence happened to be recent, doesn't make it encyclopedia material. I'm still touching up a few things here and there.

Any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer. Thanks. Sam Orchard 12:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if anyone can find a reference for the claim that "Madness achieved most of their success in the 1980s, spending more weeks in the UK chart than any other group during this period."
I've seen this repeated in many places, but I've yet to find anywhere to verify it. Sam Orchard 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
According to The Guinness Book of Hits of the 80s, Madness did spend the most weeks on the UK chart of any group (218) -- *IF* you count their 4 weeks on the charts as "The Madness" (with the single "I Pronounce You"). If you don't count that single, then they are tied with UB40 at 214. And if you count UB40's weeks on the chart with the single "Reckless" (credited to Afrika Bambaataa with UB40 and Family) then UB40 spent the most weeks on the UK singles chart of any group during the 1980s (222).
The individual who spent the most weeks on the UK singles charts in the 80s is Michael Jackson, *IF* you count his work with the Jacksons. Otherwise, the artist who spent the most weeks on the 1980s UK singles charts was ...wait for it... Shakin' Stevens, followed closely by Madonna. 172.164.57.107 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Funny how the conflict regarding "The Madness" depends on whether the group were #1 or not. I think it's worth leaving it in, but if people disagree, I guess we could discuss it here.

By the way, can I suggest signing up? It'd be more useful as I'd be able to know whether I was talking to the same person as the Madness discography page, as your IP is different. Samorchard 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a change to indicate a 'tie' with UB40. If were going to be consistent, we can't count chart weeks as "The Madness" if we're insisting that theyre a different band.
After doing some research, Madness spent 233 weeks in the charts, not 214. UB40 spent 225 in the charts. This is according to polyhex.com. I'm going to look into this further. Are you sure about the Guiness Hit Records numbers? Sam Orchard 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The above numbers most likely start from the 1970s. Madness spent a few weeks on the charts then, which would account for the discrepancy. 172.132.106.30 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got all the official top 75s, so I could simply count them, but I don't want to put in the effort if it's just going to be shot down as original research. --Hence Piano 07:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and yeah, it's pretty consistently the same person you've been talking to. I'll look into signing up -- I just hate giving out personal info to a website.... 172.149.81.154 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All you need to do is pick a username and password to sign up. You don't even need to provide an email. Sam Orchard 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for referencing the claim, but do you have the exact page number(s) the claim is made on? Sam Orchard 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former members

Is it worth listing the band's former members in the infobox? There are a few that are mentioned in the main article, although they were all prior to the band being renamed "Madness". Sam Orchard 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart stats

"The band therefore hold the record for most weeks spent by a group in the 1980s UK singles charts"

Only if you count the weeks spent as "The Madness", which Guinness recognizes as the same group, but you don't. Consistency please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.131.76 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's already a whole section about this above. It's unclear as to whether the band actually hold the record, as different sources give Madness a different number of weeks in the charts. Original research indicates they do hold the record, but obviously that's no good. Sam Orchard 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it to show that they share the record, for now. At least until this is cleared up by someone can confirm the numbers. Sam Orchard 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the "Work, Rest and Play EP" really belong on the single chart? Unless, the number of weeks should be 206. Madfan87 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It charted in the single charts, so of course it should Sam Orchard 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Candidate Review

Hello,

I am have undertaken a review of this article as per the request at WP:GAC.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I am satisfied that this article meets all of the criteria for promotion to GA Status. The article is well written, has fantastic and correct use of images, makes full use of references, is written from a neutral point of view, the article is stable. The article covers the topic very well indeed.

The only comments I feel I could add in addition to this is, I hope the editors who have worked hard to bring this article to GA Status continue to apply this work to other articles as well. :)

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Pursey 14:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleaned up well

this article seems to be put together better then it has been in the recent year and past. i think with a few touch ups this could be a solid contender as a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.142.73 (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC) sorry about not signing in. im a member, hopefully this topic spawns some good thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsoso (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling Stone magazine clueless reviews

I remember enjoying the first two albums by The Specials and Madness when they were released. They got strong reviews in the the U.K. press, as well as the U.S. independent music media. But the clueless "Rolling Stone" dismissed them at the time. Looking back, 25 years later, it's obvious that the U.K. weeklies were right and "Rolling Stone" was wrong. I mean, the first Specials album is widely recognized today as a classic. And the first three albums by Madness are considered to be outstanding, each containing a number of pop gems. And yet, this article only quotes "Rolling Stone's" laughably negative reviews (which were wrong back then and today simply sound idiotic). "Rolling Stone" has no credibility left in music---hell, the magazine spends all of its time these day simply trying to see how much cleavage they can display on their cover, (as they give endless cover stories to mediocrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to find reviews for albums 25 years old. If you can find any, with a reliable source, please include them. Sam Orchard (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band Logo

Maybe state that the M/Bowlerhat logo was later replaced by the M wearing a crown logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate chapter

i think the dangermen and the current album should (after it's release) definately get seperate time chapters.

[edit] Morris Minor And The Majors

Just out of curiosity;

It is stated, that Madness at a point called themselves Morris Minor And The Majors.

Does anybody knows if it in fact was Madness that got at british top-4 hit in 1987 with "Stutterrap (No Sleep 'Till Bedtimne)" under the name "Morris Minor & The Majors" (This song was a parody of Beastie Boys No Sleep 'Till Brooklyn).

Hope that someone can help - thanks in advance.

René —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.130.148 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Madness were just called "Morris and the Minors" - it wasn't them who recorded the song you mention. Hope that clears it up Sam Orchard (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outrageous POV Insult

Suggs ended up performing the song in an embarasing fashion after having apparantly consumed significant quantities of alcohol before getting on stage. He swore whilst mumbling his way through an introduction during which he claimed he hadn't yet even heard the Pet Shop Boys' version of the song. He even appeared to have some difficulty finding his microphone, despite the fact that it was sat directly in front of him. There is some evidence to suggest that Tennant planned to sing with the group (a third mic is clearly visibly throughought recordings of the act) but this idea may have been dropped when the duo noticed the state the Madness singer had turned up in. Indeed, Pet Shop boys' admirably professional conduct - in particular Neil Tennant's quick-thinking way of responding to the singer's bizarre on-stage behaviour, most noticeable in his prompting Suggs of when he should sing - just about rescued the perfomance. A few days afterwards, Pet Shop Boys' posted their own version of the track on their official website which was unarguably superior to the Madness original in every way, despite the fact that it was a hastily-recorded demo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)