Talk:Sixpence None the Richer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	This article is supported by the Christian music WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Christian music. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Christian music Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Contemporary Christian Task Force.

can sixpence really be considered a rock group?

Yes. Have you seen them in concert? Their hits are not necessarily "Rock," but they were always a rock band.

11-1-05 I listened to one song off each of their albums today. Must say they are a good band. Enjoyed the covers as well. -DDR

---

Could some one please throw some more light on this band? One photo will be good. Also, I have added a music-stub template. --Anupam Srivastava 06:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] must everything be preceded with Christian or secular?

An anonymous user has taken quite some time distinguishing which songs and other things are "Contemporary Christian" and which ones are considered "secular". In my opinion, labelling everything in this manner severely hinders the readability of the article. I'm not personally familiar enough with Sixpence's discography to know when it's really necessary to describe the content as the anonymous user has done. I didn't want to blindly revert the article precisely because of this reason. Could someone who is better informed please address this? Thanks. --Kyoko 08:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Furthermore, "Contemporary Christian" is obviously a musical genre, not a belief system, so it's strange to label something that isn't Contemporary Christian as being "secular." Even if "secular" meant "not Contemporary Christian", it would be like labeling everything that isn't country as being "non-country" in an article about a country band. 193.91.181.142 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (Nick)

It is very repetetive. I'm going to try to rework it right now. I also think it's strange to see Contemporary Christian capitalized everywhere - I guess religious people are sensitive about capitalizing the name of the religion, but contemporary can certainly be minisculed. Reading it, I thought for a while Contemporary Christian might be a proper noun, like the name of a record label, because it was caps. Cat Parade 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when is a genre of anything not capitalized? Do you go to the "religeous" section at Borders or the "Religeous" section? The capilization refines it. Much like "fantasy" is very, very broad while "Fantasy" would bring to mind the genre Tolkien created. 69.179.145.221 22:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The edits labelling everthing either "Contemporary Christan" or "secular" are not only annoying, they're misleading. Is there a way to change this by just reverting back to the page before it was ruined? I'm not a wikipedia expert at all. This thing really needs to be changed, though. --Joelh 27 Oct 2006

I just read this article for the first time and agree completely. Annoying and unnecessary. BlongerBros 04:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - This appears to be vandalism. Reverting to an earlier version is easy - just click on the history, find a good version, click edit on that version, and save it. See Help:Reverting for more info. Dan, the CowMan 06:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all this, BUT I think the back and forth reveals something that should be reflected in the entry somehow. One of the most notable things about Sixpence is that they were emblematic of a blurring of the boundries between "Christian" and "secular" music that began in the late 90s. They helped force the CCM industry and fans deal with the question of what makes certain music Christian. I believe the Dove Awards changed its defintion of gospel music in 1998 to specifically prevent Sixpence from winning (and then changed it back). The fact that someone keeps trying to deliniate which songs are which shows that certain people in the CCM community are still heavily invested in making such distinctions, while many others, of course, find the distinctions legalistic and trivializing. To the extent that this is a noteworthy historical/cultural/philosophical debate, I'd propose this entry as the place to address it. I'd do it myself, but I'll wait and see if someone with a deeper understanding of CCM wants to tackle it. Radosh 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete discography

For instance Tickets For A Prayer Wheel is missing. Please see this fan page for a complete discography. --Walter Görlitz 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's under "Other Releases". The section is badly formatted at present, though. Dan, the CowMan 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of the single "I Can't Catch You"? Did this single not chart? Also "Love (remix)", "Waiting On the Sun" and "Tonight" were radio singles that were never sold as physical cd singles (I heard "Tonight" and "Love" on a satellite radio station, and "Waiting" in a McDonalds on several occasions). If someone could explain these that'd be great!