Talk:Poison (band)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
there was also a german black metal band named Poison.
Changed "Glam Metal" to "hair metal". Since Poison became known as as part of the late 1980s early 1990s scene in Los Angeles, it is not appropriate to refer to them as glam metal. Glam metal belongs to the 1970s and early 1980s and did not emerge in LA.
Glam rock belongs to the 1970s, glam metal was prevalent in L.A. in the mid to late eighties. Hair metal is not a genre, it's an insult.
The first heading on this article is disgraceful. this is nothing but an advertisement for the band. Are there record company executives editing this page? Or is it you Rikki??
22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Article POV
I have an extreme disagreement with this line from the opening of this article "With more than 14 million albums sold in the United States alone, the band is one of the most commercially successful rock acts in history." I think this is, while not quite violating is highly pushing the non point of view policy that Wikipedia prides itself on. I think a much better way to express this would be something like: 'One of the most successful Glam Metal bands of the era,' or somewhere along those lines. But to say that Poison is one of the most successful rock bands ever, is just plain ludicrous when compared to the success of bands like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, U2, or Van Halen. In adition, much of this article is written in an excessive fan pov format, making the entire article unsuitable for an encyclopedia entry. Avador 19:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)\
The Beatles are from the United Kingdom. U2 is Irish. Led Zepplin is British. Posion is American and like it or not, Poison is one of the most successful rock acts in U.S. history. Poison is group from the U.S.
Led Zepplin, U2 and The Beatles are three of the most successful non-American rock groups in U.S. history. Then again, no one comes close to having the success of the Beatles on the charts- except Mariah Carey and Madonna.
I would have to agree that Poison is one of the most successful rock groups in U.S. history. The ballad "Every Rose Has it thorns" reached #1 and they had top ten singles in Talk Dirty To me, Nothin' but a good time, Unskinny Bop and Something to believe in and three multi-platinum albums. Flesh & Blood, Look What the Cat Dragged in and Open Up and Say Ahh all reached the top 3 of the Billboard 200 albums chart. Poison might not measure to bands like Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Aerosmith or Van Halen. Poison was one of the best hair metal bands. In 2006, music tastes have changed and I'm not sure there's a market for Poison now. Then again, I miss the old days when Poison was on top.
Bullshit! 15 million is nothing compared to other bands. Guns N' Roses and Motley Crue were arguably the two most successful 80's hard rock bands, though gnr came at the late eighties.
Are the tour dates really necessary? Shouldn't you have to go to their official website for that kind of stuff?LanceManion1973
The linclusion of tour dates in an encylopaedia entry is extremely inappropriate. If Poison's management want to promote their tour, they should fork out some cash for bandwidth for their own website.
203.143.64.75
This is one of the most poorly-written, fawning "fanzine" articles I've seen on this site. While I can't say I expected much from this band's fanbase, it could certainly have been done with a bit of objectivity, couldn't it? "Which featured several great songs...". Really? Come on... BarstoolProf 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Barstool prof
[edit] Poison HAS a Website
Whoever the user was that said that Poison should "fork out cash" for their own website. Well, Poison has a website. As does every single person in the band. They are listed on the External links section for goodness sake. If you can't do that much research before spouting off, I don't think you should be adding any contributions to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.--Sivazh 16:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sivazh the Marketing genius
Ah Sivazh! You must be the marketing genius who put the tour dates on there in the first place! No doubt, you are also the advertising guru who continually places BILLBOARD-SIZED pictures of Poison's new album on the page. Maybe you should go to a dictionary and: 1. look up the word "encylopedia"; and then 2. look up the word "advertisement"; then 3. see if you can detect a difference between these two concepts; 4. see if you can see the irony in your comment about who should be making contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.200.242 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] More POV
But in an another direction: "Poison's music was characterised by relatively simple, catchy melodies and guitar riffs. The band's tunes often seemed less important than their garish costumes, overblown hair, feminizing make-up, and frenetic stageshow, all delivered via the metal-heavy MTV of the mid to late 1980s" So, I'm kinda disposed to removing this part.. Has anyone anything to say about this? Maybe the editor? --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poison is a Hard Rock Band Too
Please Don´t Delete "Hard Rock" in Poison Styles, they play hard rock. It´s simply, hear Flesh and Blood, Native Tounge and Crack A Smile... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shawncito (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
Hard Rock had a citation requested a while ago and no one could find a source. This is why it keeps getting taken down. If you can find a reliable source then you can add it back. And generally most genres are not listed if only a few of the bands songs are in that style, as you have suggested in your above post.Hoponpop69 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bla bla bla
Here is your "source"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hard_rock_musicians#P
Wikipedia thinks that poison is a hard rock band, and ask any people WHO KNOWS music...the first years of poison was glam metal, but they dropped the glam style to become a more traditional band, it´s simply, hear native tounge, you feel the change...
and you hear the new cover song of grand funk railroad?
and sorry for my english, i´m latin american, BUT i know the good music —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shawncito (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.
[edit] more sources
here http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/gletter.cgi?Letter=P
Look the Band "POISON"
the album "NATIVE TONGUE" http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=290&CDName=Native+Tongue
the album "HOLLYWEIRD"
http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=290&CDName=Hollyweird
and Poison´s last album "20 years of rock" http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=290&CDName=The+Best+Of+Poison:+20+Years+Of+Rock
Ok thank you I'll put this into the article for you.Hoponpop69 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Poison000s.jpg
Image:Poison000s.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 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 08:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Poison.png
Image:Poison.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 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Poison.png
Image:Poison.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 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) 07:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Worldwide sales per album
Please, if anyone knows it, post them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKKDARK (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
