From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archived topics 1.1 Resolution of August 2007 edit war 1.2 Unnecessary Changes 1.3 Serious cleanup needed 1.4 RIAA Sales claims 1.5 THE FINAL WORD ABOUT THE RIAA SALES CLAIMS 1.5.1 New section on the 4x3M claim 1.6 VANDALISM here & at related STYX pages 1.7 Rock-n-Roll & Drugs 1.8 Family Guy 1.9 With Rush 1.10 New Album = I Am A Warrus 1.11 Dennis, the identity of Styx??? No way! 1.12 Album art table 1.13 Consummative tastes? 1.14 Song meanings 1.15 Charts 1.16 New Styx album 1.17 A Really Nice STYX FAN SITE Indeed 1.18 Crappy First Sentence!!! 1.19 Ironically, 1.20 Shamisen 1.21 My Edits 1.22 NPOV 1.23 Template? 1.24 The Styx Sound / DeYoung's Keyboard Techniques 1.25 Fair use rationale for Image:Come Sail Away - The Styx Anthology.jpg

[edit] Archived topics

Below are topics which have been archived as they no longer have anything to do with the current article as of this archive date of 15 Sep 2007:

[edit] Resolution of August 2007 edit war

I suggest everyone voluntarily stop arguing, stop preaching, and call a temporary truce in the reversioning war. Leave BamaDude's rev up for now. Let's go through the factual differences in the two major revs (which I'll call Bama's and 98PercentHuman's regardless of who actually wrote the sections in contention), and discuss what to keep and what to discard. Here is a first cut.

(1) Styx as a Necro-Rock band. - My two cents: This is a questionable fringe opinion and adds nothing to the article. Leave it out.

(2) Styx as first band to have four triple/multi-platinum album. - Long discussion on this below in the section "THE FINAL WORD...".

(3) Early Years Section, passage starting "On the heels..." - BamaDude's general reorginization is fine. The bit about JC leaving the band to save his marriage needs a direct citation, else we should leave it out. Styx's source says he simply didn't want to tour.

(4) Pieces of Eight para - Bama's version is fine except for the line about DDY having a temporary hit slump. This should be removed - it is unnecessary, reads as baiting, and "slump" is subjective in any case. Bama's version of the article lists who wrote each hit single Styx ever released, and that is sufficient. Let the reader draw his own conclusions.

(5) Cornerstone para - Bama's version is superior. Who cares who else was nominated for those Grammys? This is an article about Styx, not The Eagles or The Cars. We can add a link to the WP award pages so that if the user is interested in who actually won, they can click through.

(6) "Tension among band members..." - Bama's version is superior. I mean, come on: "...rear its ugly head"?

(7) Paradise Theater - The photo of DDY as Kilroy should stay as long as it meets WP fair use standards. We need a citation on the poll listing Styx as the most popular rock band - yes, it's true, I remember it well and I believe it was for two years running, but was it by Gallup or some other organization? As per our custom throughout the article, credit who wrote the hit singles as in Bama's version.

(8) Kilroy - Bama's section addition and rewording are acceptable. Though it is not a point of contention, the "time would prove cynical..." line in both versions is fluff writing. Just begin the paragraph "Kilroy earned a nomination..." (not "a nominee").

(9) Music Time / breakup para - I prefer Bama's version. Music Time peaked at #40 on Billboard if it matters.

(10) Solo Careers and Edge - In both cases, Bama's version is better organized and includes accurate WP links.

(11) Brave New World Bama's section is fine through the para about CP. A bone of contention is relating the circumstances of DDY's departure. 98PercentHuman's version mentions "before DDY could return from his illness", Bama's leaves that out (ungrammatically) but adds a note about the lawsuit. Both revs have merit, and it would seem we can combine them without flaming. I suggest "Later that year, with no improvement in DDY's condition, Styx went on tour with LG filling in DDY's role. As a result of the replacement..."

(12) Cyclorama - Bama's reorg/cleanup is good. Though it is not a point of contention, the sentence about Burtnik's unhappiness with his diminished role and "KYAG" is overkill and should be removed - it belongs on Burtnik's WP page, if anywhere.

(13) Discography, etc. - Bama's reorg/cleanup is good.

There are embarrassingly few major content differences between the two versions. Putting aside his personality issues, BamaDude's reorg and cleanup of this article has by and large been excellent. The only real content contentions are (1) the four-by-3XPlatinum issue, (2) DDY's "hit slump" during POE, (3) the popularity poll citation, (4) the phrasing of DDY's departure. I'd add (5) the phrasing of Burtnik's departure. Unless there are further objections, can we please keep Bama's reorg in place and limit disagreement to those items, plus any others anyone cares to bring up? Dpiranha 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks tremendously for your input, Dpiranha. What personality issues?? ;-) Seriously, I appreciate that someone with a unique combination of class and brains has weighed in on the subject. I agree with your solution 100%, of course, but let me add that the DDY slump I referred to was nothing more than an antagonistic response to a similar wording about Tommy Shaw's alleged slump about 3 dozen revisions ago, and I apologize for that. The DDY mini-slump is obviously a citable fact, but hardly worth noting as the article should be positive unless it's competely necessary to be negative to push the article forward into necessary data, which that is not and I humbly request forgiveness for my venom. I'm still trying to figure out what the grammatical error is that you're referring to in re DDY's departure. That could be reworded a number of different ways as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see a grammatical error as written. If I missed it, blame the Alabama education system.--Bamadude 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Later that year, before DDY was replaced by LG." That's a sentence fragment. I think you meant to delete "before" too. Dpiranha 04:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on --- I didn't post that edit with the fragmented sentence. I have posted numerous scrweups (sic) & tpyos (sic) due to my frantic hunt-n-peck keyboard technique, but I didn't do that one. I spent 30 minutes searching the history to vindicate myself and I found it --- it was done by user Etweeks on 2 August 2007 at 11:25. The sentence should be edited to simply remove the word "before", which I just did.--Bamadude 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I have objected to (outside of Bama's unilateral wiki editing without discussion) is (1) the removal of the Kilroy picture (just because someone doesn't like Kilroy doesn not mean it wasn't an extremely visible time in the band's history). (2) The needless removal of the 3xplatinum claim (3) MOST importantly, Bama's inclusion of "citable" facts that favor one member over another while deleting facts that put the member he doesn't like in a positive light. If we can agree to put these things back in, I am good. Having said that, it is not just me who edits this page (long before Bama got here). --98percenthuman 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Longevity of editing is not an issue in determine facts, and if you've been a user longer than me, you certainly should have learned the rules by now. You are arguing to include uncited facts, which is against the editing policy. The triple-platinum statement cannot be cited properly as it's a statement that isn't sourced by RIAA (read the LONG section about this below and remember it this time). RIAA is the only official source for USA album sales figures. StyxWorld is not an official source for album sales figures for anybody, including Styx. As an olive branch to you, I say leave the Kilroy pic if it meets fair use, no big deal - I apologize to you if I offended you in removing it as I thought it was against policy to use copyrighted images period. Finally, I fully support the inclusion of any facts relating to any member of Styx, but you seem to want to represent your DDY opinions as facts. If you would please try to meet the common goal of provide a factual, balanced article and stop interjecting your opinions as facts and stop trying to flip the article to a "DDY as leader of Styx" article, there would be no edit war period. I have no cause to remove cited facts.--Bamadude 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never attempted to make this a DDY site. I have actually been fairly neutral in my opinion of the Styx battle. In fact, if you go back through the history of this entry you will see me telling pro-Tommy AND pro-DDY edits that this is not the place to fight Styx's war. Having said that, I don't think that you can deny that Dennis was the leader of Styx until the 1999 split (cite Chuck P's book, Sterling Whitaker's book, VH-1's behind the music). So choosing citable facts that paint DDY as somehow less than the leader while ignoring citable facts that show hima as the leader is pure POV. The Kilroy pic meets fair use (its also used in the very messy "concept album" entry - good luck if you try cleaning that one up!). Put it back up, and I'm fine with your edits. I really don't care if you want to use the RIAA thing (though its in the Rolling Stone Rock and Roll Encyclopedia - I think) I merely objected to your unilateral deletion of it and then contentious discussion of it. --98percenthuman 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you're mad because somebody reverted your edits, regardless of whether they are cited or not. I don't know why you think your uncited POV edits are so important that a tribunal has to be held to remove them, nor why you think I'm the only person who has a problem with uncited POV edits. Dennis has never been the leader of anything in Styx except the on-stage performance; that's just more of your opinion creeping into what's supposed to be an objective discussion of the facts of an article. I should suggest some books on journalism, as all those sources you state are doing nothing more than stating their opinions; you have a hard time distinguishing facts from opinion. DDY had a 20% stake in Styx, same as everybody else, and real leaders can't be fired; they do the firing. Rolling Stone is not an official source of anything to do with album sales figures. PLEASE concentrate your edits on the facts only.--Bamadude 03:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy, folks, we're nearing consensus. Nobody is ever going to be 100% happy with this article. Let's remove the "hit slump" sentence and restore the Kilroy picture - two problems down. We need a reasonable citation for the "favorite band" poll; until we know for certain what organization did the polling and when, the current generic line will have to stay. Is there any objection to my proposed rephrasing of the circumstances of DDY's final departure and the subsequent settlement? It's a touchy subject, and it's likely the line that we will need to monitor closely in this article moving forward.

In re the DDY departure, you want to state that LG is or was "filling in", which is not and has never been true. What would be more appropriate is to say something simple which reflectes the facts as we know them, such as "In 1999 (somebody please verify this year), Dennis DeYoung was fired due to his refusal to tour because of his illness concerning sensitivity to light and was replaced by Lawrence Gowan." The simple evidence for this is that DDY sued them as soon as they hired LG, so they had no intentions of bringing DDY back. I also have a (slightly inflammatory) question, but it begs to be asked --- why didn't DDY just wear sunglasses like everybody else who's hypersenstive to light? Did you ever leave the eye doctors office with dilated eyes? Was his condition that much worse than anybody's else's? I'm just asking; besides, it gives 98% something to write about (just kidding 98).;-)--Bamadude 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fired" is a strong word, and there is no verifiable source for using it other than a distant (and arguably subjective) interpretation of historical events. There was a replacement, a lawsuit, and a settlement, that's all. Note this contemporary article (scroll to the last few paragraphs), which makes no clear statement that the LG/DDY switch was intended to be permanent; the article even cites the original lineup reforming for a particular show after the "firing". ^[1] We can write that LG "replaced" DDY instead of "filled in for", but not that DDY was "fired" without an explicit and unimpeachable source. 71.125.152.107 03:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a number of problems with your arguments:

1) Sign in and stand behind your statements so we can attribute a particular user to the argument instead of anonymous sockpuppets.

2) The site you quote doesn't have any citations, sources, footnotes or endnotes, so it's all either his opinion, or a figment of his imagination, or he doesn't know enough about solid journalism that sources are important --- in either case, this is strictly unofficial, unsourced original research.

3) According to StyxWorld (who would in this case be an official source for who is in the band and who's not, and why they're not), states that "Lawrence Gowan JOINED the band" in 1999.[1] You can't JOIN a band unless you are a MEMBER of a band. You wouldn't say that a sideman or fill-in "joined" the band; you'd probably say "filled in" or "was hired" to play keyboards, but you wouldn't say "joined the band". Take that from a guy who's been in numerous bands for 30 years. Besides that, if a certain member doesn't want to tour but the entire rest of the band does, the one who doesn't tour is typically fired, according to the history of such things --- ask Steve Perry of Journey.--Bamadude 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, Bama, would you please chill out? 71.125.152.107 is me; I forgot to log in as I often do, so just have me drawn and quartered. (*rolls eyes*)

The web article I cited was the October 1999 cover story from Goldmine Magazine, a very respected music industry publication, and was a direct interview with JY, DDY, TS, etc. It just happened to be from the author's personal web site. "Endnotes", "footnotes", "citations" - sorry, but rock and roll bands rarely get a mention in the New England Journal Of Medicine, so you're going to have to lower your standards a bit. The contemporary article makes no mention of DDY being fired, at least not then. The announcement that DDY wasn't going on tour came in April of 1999, the tour started in May, and the Children's Miracle Network concert referenced in the article was on June 6th. A Google search will confirm all of these dates, including video of the CMN show with DDY.

Moreover on LG's web site (http://www.gowan.org/pocketpc/biography.htm), it says Gowan was initially asked to "fill in" for the '99 tour, exactly as I originally worded it. Only later was he tapped as the "natural choice" to "replace" DDY the following winter. The word "fired" appears nowhere on LG's, DDY's, CP's, or Styx's official sites. In light of that, the article calls for a less-absolute, NPOV term. If you still want to use "fired", then you'll need (as you would insist from the rest of us) to produce a published, verifiable, academic source that says DDY was "fired" from Styx - we'll want footnotes and citations; I might want notarized affidavits after all this. "Take it from BamaDude" is unacceptable unless there's something in WP:CITE that I've overlooked. :-) (Incidentally, I've been in bands too, so "take it from me" - the circumstances of a member's departure from a band are often not cut and dried, but a progressive series of incidents, hiatuses, and quarrels that are eventually resolved, occasionally via legal action. Read CP's book to get an idea of the various internal pressures and forces that pulled Styx apart. Even he avoids "fired" as a term, since by the end it was fairly clear that DDY didn't want to come back, he just wanted rights to the name.) I'll remember to sign this time: Dpiranha 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When you don't sign in, it has the appearance that another user has weighed in on the subject, which is misleading, so please sign in each time before you post.

Why would DDY be mad that they were touring without him unless he knew he wasn't coming back --- after all, if LG's just a fill-in, why get upset? This is obvious evidence that he KNEW he was fired rather than being temporarily replaced by a fill-in. Therefore, I stand behind my previous posting on his firing/quitting/mad-they-left-him-behind, etc. I'm surprised you've been duped by "spin", as it's easy to understand that LG isn't going to post negative info on DDY --- he already has enough of a PR problem with DDY fans without antagonizing them further as it is and he apparently isn't as aggressive as your typical rock musician. I met him backstage this summer and that's a good summary in my opinion, i.e., he's a nice guy, although he didn't appear to enjoy my joke that he looked like Austin Powers in his outfit that night (even though everyone else laughed --- I did apologize to him).;-)

But I also don't have a problem with a compromise solution stating "Gowan was hired to play keyboards due to DDY's refusal to tour in 1999 due to a sensitivity to light. DDY then filed a lawsuit against Styx over their touring without him and Styx countersued over his use of the term "the voice of Styx". Both suits were resolved . . ." or something very close to that effect. That still encapsulates the facts and sounds nice enough to satisfy DDY's fan base, don't you think? Of course, that will have to stand until I have time to track down some official source stating he was fired, which I'm sure in my mind (as was his own) that DDY was fired and it was kept quiet just like the 1st time he was fired in 1980.--Bamadude 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That would leave us with the 4x3XPlatinum claim. If it's truly in the R&RE, then that to me is a reliable enough source (though it still wouldn't shock me if it were someday proved false.) But after all this, we need a formal bibliography citation down to the page #. If it's not in the R&RE, my latest suggestion: Completely remove all references to the claim from the opening paragraph, stating only that Styx had four consecutive 3xPlat albums from 1977 to 1981. Add a subsection later in the article noting that Styx is frequently cited in the music press as the first band to accomplish the 4x3P feat, but sales figure claims of that nature are difficult to verify independently (or something along those lines). Finish with the line Bama added to the intro regarding multiplat certification by the RIAA. That ought to acknowledge the popularity of the claim, indicate WP's inability to confirm it independently, mention the one related fact we have been able to confirm, and move it all out of the intro. From there, somebody in the record industry might be able to shed some light on it, but we'll have done all we can for the time being.

Popularity of the claim?!? Why are we still discussing "popularity" of claims rather than printing factual, cited statements? Why are we still considering "printing the legend"? The R&RE is NOT an official source for album sales figures, therefore, they have to provide a valid, official source themselves for the statement, which they don't. We can't start quoting unofficial sources because we THINK & BELIEVE they're respectable and beyond reproach; that doesn't make it a citable fact --- we're at that point reduced to printing opinions & urban legends as facts, which is why the article is being discussed in the first place. The "multi-platinum" statement is the only one that's cited by an official source and getting upset over the need to insert the word "triple" instead of "multi" to change a citied statement to an uncited legend is nothing more than a power play and unwarranted by the known, officially-cited facts by the RIAA.--Bamadude 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE CONCERNING CITATIONS --- It's very important to note that just placing a citation is not the end of it. The citation needs to be either from an official source of such facts, or a reliable source if no official source exists. If you have an official source of the facts, no other source is needed or should be accepted unless they can prove an error in the official source. For example, the RIAA is the official source of album sales figures for the USA. No other source would be providing valid contradictory evidence unless they can prove an error in RIAA's figures/claims. If you can't find a reference to Styx being the first band to have 4 consecutive albums go TRIPLE-platinum because it only shows that Styx is the first band to have 4 consecutive albums reach MULTI-platinum status (a dubious honor as I discussed below that I personally added to the article because it's barely true), then that means there is no official source for the "TRIPLE-platinum" statement you are standing behind. Finally, if you have no official source and you're looking for an unofficial, reliable source, then quoting some fan site or other myth-filled site that doesn't cite its own sources of the "facts" they print is a dubious citation indeed. Let it be known that for as long as this article has existed, I was the first person to include a footnote as I created the Footnotes section barely a month ago, which is a standard part of exemplary Wiki articles.--Bamadude 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point we sit back and argue some more, but at least when we revert obvious fanboy edits, we're reverting to a version we can all live with. (And when we DO revert, ensure that the edit comment refers the user to the discussion page.) Let's let it go through the weekend and see if there are any further comments here. Dpiranha 04:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than my 2 points above plus my "citations" rant, I'm OK with everything else suggested by Dpiranha and I want to thank you for your valuable help in mediating.--Bamadude 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely impressed with your research, Dpiranha, and I'll now make all the changes proposed except for the "triple-platinum" claim until that is resolved. If you can find an old RIAA source that can be cited (and possibly saved) so it can be verified later showing "triple-platinum" in regards to the 4 Styx albums in question and the date they were certified to prove it was done first by any band, by all means, use it. I don't have a problem with it and I feel it's quite possible that RIAA can't use the terms anymore due to copyright issues; the MPAA lost the rights to "XXX" the same way. But just because they can't use the words anymore doesn't mean that we should IMPLY that the albums went triple-platinum because a number of unofficial sources state it. We should want to see the words "triple-platinum" from an RIAA source (however old it is) to confirm that it has been acknowledged by them at some time or another and the date they certified it to prove the point Styx was first in this regard. You have to understand that rumors and myths are pervasive and we have tons of them in our history books, so having a "reputable" tome quote a source that is not official with what may be a myth is not good enough; besides, what's the big deal -- being the first to have a 4 multi-platinum albums is a strong-enough statement --- what's the fixation to have it be "triple" platinum anyway? The fact is, it's a dubious honor as they only beat out Foreigner by a day due to paperwork, and Foreigner had 3 of their 4 albums certified a month before Styx's 4 albums.--Bamadude 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary Changes

There is a lot of unnecessary changing of this page going on. Please stop it.--SkepticDan 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Danny Boy, that depends on what you call "unnecessary". If you feel that the facts get in the way of providing you with an acceptable version of the truth in your eyes from your point of view, then yes, I assume you would think that adding facts into the article and removing uncited material is "unnecessary". However, Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral POV, and statements should also be supported by citations, no original research or opinions. Unless you have a cited statement which contradicts the facts in the article, please don't revert the page. This is not a fan page and all article submissions should be based on cited facts from reliable sources.--Bamadude 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen 2 references to "peer review" so far and I want to clear up a misnomer. According to the Wiki page for "peer review", there is nothing there that states 1) that it's used for anything but upgrading an article, like to "featured status", or 2) that an article can be reviewed by anyone or any committee for accuracy except for an "academic" peer review, and thet last time I checked, there are no academic peers for Styx-related material, but I'd sure like to find a member of academia who agrees with posting uncited or poorly-sourced material so I could revoke their sheepskin and have their thesis reviewed again.

A peer review is not a cabal of people who get together and decide what the facts are on their own, inserting their opinions to achieve a desired end; it's a study by a group of people known for their non-bias and their knowledge, and good luck finding that in this arena. Facts are facts; you can't declare something to be fact if it isn't, and if it is a fact, it doesn't need your help, just cite it using a valid, non-biased, official source. I've seen a lot of quoting of misinformation not only in this article, but also in the reasons a couple of users give to revert cited facts and replace with uncited myths or opinions. Please state only the facts, or prima facie evidence (100% obviously-unchallenged data, such as it's a given that Styx is from Chicago, no citation needed) and don't believe everything you read on the WWW. If you'd like to read syrupy fan pages about your favorite band or get your opinions in print, there are plenty of fan sites out there and you can always start your own, but in this article, as Jack Webb said, "just the facts, please" and CITE THEM per WP:Verifiability.--Bamadude 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious cleanup needed

This article reads like a Creem Magazine profile in many places. I've gotten pro-active on it and started cleaning up where needed. I added fact tags and removed material that had old uncited fact tags, also edited fanisms directed at both Shaw & DDY. The article needs more encyclopedic content and less POV remarks.--Bamadude 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, you need to discuss changes before you just start deleting things that are verifiable fact. Please don't be "pro-active" without discussing it first. It appears you have something against certain members of the band and it is coming through in your edits. Please read wikipedias definitions of NPOV and weasel words. --98percenthuman 01:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This of course is not true. You are reverting cited facts and replacing them with your uncited POV opinions. This article is laden with unsourced info & hearsay due to your work and neglect. If you want to discuss your edits, please detail them here first unless you have a citation for them as you do not provide sources for your info or a valid reason why you don't like my edits except your opinion. All my edits are accompanied by solid sources as yours should be.--Bamadude 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RIAA Sales claims

If they are facts, then cite them with an official source. You claim a lot of things with no citations for the statements. Let's start with this --- what official source says they were the first band to have 4 consecutive albums that sold 3 million each? I couldn't find it anywhere except on the Shaw Blades site, and being "pro-Shaw", even I wouldn't accept that.--Bamadude 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Its there now. The RIAA site. Is THAT acceptable for you? and BTW: GI, POE, CRNSTN, and PT all went triple platinum.

--98percenthuman 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope --- your link was to a search page --- find a direct link to the fact, please. If they did all 4 go triple- platinum is not the question; it's whether they were the first band to accomplish this feat, which is the statement I deleted.--Bamadude 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want me to cite all four pages in the one comment then I can do that. I think its very unnecessary and who are you to dictate this anyway? This page has had that line in it for 2 years. You need to DISCUSS your changes before you make them. Please undo your edits and discusss them. --98percenthuman 02:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to discuss the changes as they are uncited statements which are subject to deletion per WP:Verifiability. You have to prove your statements with proper citations, so go ahead, cite all 4 pages with proper official sources or I'll revert it. There's plenty of room, and if it takes all 4 pages to prove it, you should do it. Citing the albums' sales figures is not the point --- it should state that Styx is the FIRST band to accomplish this feat if that's the exact claim. Quit pointing fingers and do your homework instead of making unverified statements. I'm not saying whether it's true or not as I really don't care; it's just that claims like these need to be backed up by solid research using official sources if you want to have a legitimate article.--Bamadude 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE FINAL WORD ABOUT THE RIAA SALES CLAIMS

First off, let me say that I'm not here to bash Styx as I'm a big fan of the band or I wouldn't be here; I'm just here to bash uncited remarks with no sources and bash users who try to avoid the fact that the remark can't be proven. The unwritten "fact-by-fiat" rule, that if virtually everybody believes something it must be true, is a patently-ridiculous example of mob mentality and flies in the face of the Wikipedia rules regarding verifiability, not to mention your own innate human ability to question factoids, i.e., statements without merit that seem plausible yet aren't proven thus far. There are numerous warnings on many, many Wiki pages that there is no official sourcing for the info provided, so it's imperative to (most of) those in charge here that the info be factual and backed up by official sources for the facts.

There is a current claim on the table by some users that has allegedly remained on this site for some time, uncited and unproven. So far, there has been no conclusive, black-and-white official RIAA source for it. I used the link provided by user 98percenthuman (thanks, dude!) to search the RIAA site to provide a basis for the claim myself since I couldn't get the pundits (such as the aforementioned user) who keep making the claim to do it themselves. Now I know why they didn't --- the statistic to prove such a claim doesn't exist!

What I found was that the RIAA database lists the DATE an album goes gold (500,000), platinum (1,000,000) or multi-platinum (2,000,000+). They do not list any dates WHEN an album sells 3 million albums or WHEN it reaches any other exact sales figure other than gold, platinum or multi-platinum, so there is NO WAY to verify the claim that they were the first band to reach 3 million in sales on 4 consecutive albums. In fact, if you leave the name field blank and do a search for "Album" & "Multi-Platinum" and click "1985" to have the search stop at that year, you'll find that Styx had their first Multi-Platinum album award on 14 Nov, 1984, on which date the 4 albums in question were certified all together as such, but the group Alabama had 4 of their (consecutive) albums certified multi-platinum a month before that. So did Earth, Wind & Fire. AC/DC also had 4 albums certified prior to that date also, but they weren't consecutive albums. Foreigner technically gets beat because they had 3 of their first 4 albums certified a month prior to Styx, but the 4th was done 2 days after Styx's four, one would assume strictly due to paperwork since RIAA just started doing it a month earlier. Billy Joel also beat Styx if you count only studio albums. In other words, the statement is a crock of horse dung. The best you could say is that technically, Styx was the first band to have 4 CONSECUTIVE albums be certified multi-platinum, but it's highly dubious now that you know the facts, but since we are big on promoting any tidbit or truth that can be proven regardless of the substance of it, I'll put it back in that edited fashion.--Bamadude 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The link to the search to see this info for yourself is: http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH --Bamadude 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Styxworld.com is an official band page and backed by a legitimate record company who is not going to falsly advertise its band. Its an adequate reference. Why are you so against its inclusion anyway? Its been there for a long time without any complaints. Bilboard, RIAA, etc (these official sources you demand) are not the Guiness book of world records, they don't list milestones like that. --98percenthuman 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

StyxWorld obviously is devoted to promoting Styx, and just because they tout a statement doesn't mean it's a fact. If they aren't able to cite their own statements, that should throw up a red flag to you and anyone else with a brain who thinks for themselves. I'm surprised that you, being a Dennis DeYoung fan, would be touting the virtues of a Styx-related statement that's unsourced considering that they fired DDY (or if you prefer to think that he quit the band that you think is an illegitimate version of Styx, that's your call). I, being an obviously rabid Tommy Shaw fan, should be the one who's deluded by hearsay from the band he now runs with JY, the one that fired DDY, but I'm obviously not as naive as you. If anyone makes a claim of album sales figures, you should go to RIAA to verify as the official source. If you can't source it there, you obviously have a problem. I've already explained that to you in previous posts the RIAA claims; see above & try reading them this time. Like all other Wikipedia articles, I only want to see an unbiased article that states only the facts, just like every other article should. If you have a legitimately-sourced fact, put it down, but so far, all you and your buddies seem to do is get pissed that the fanisms are gone.--Bamadude 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little leery wading into this perpetual flame war, particularly as I have an anonIP (but am not, I promise, one of those DDY fans who are constantly quarreling with Bamadude). Speaking narrowly on the claim of Styx being the first band with four consecutive triple-platinum albums: variations on this claim are so widespread and have been cited by so many different sources over the years that I feel that *some* form of it belongs in the article. A Google search on "Styx first band platinum" will turn up about 50 sites in the first 10 pages that include some form of the claim, including quite a few reputable news outlets. Furthermore, as a teen in the 70's and rock reviewer in the early 80's, I recall quite clearly that when Cornerstone went triple, the claim was made throughout the rock press that Styx was the first band to have *three* such albums. (Note that this was three consecutive TRIPLE-platinum albums, not merely MULTI-platinum.) When Paradise Theater was certified triple, the same press simply replaced "three" with "four". It is always possible that the media was wrong way back when, falling for a figment of some marketer's imagination, and that all of these web sites are simply parroting a long-established falsehood. But until reading this WP talk page a quarter-century later, I hadn't encountered any serious dispute of the claim. Bamadude has produced evidence that other artists may have had four consecutive multi-platinum albums prior to Styx, and has convinced me that it would be wise to leave any mention of RIAA certification out of the article. However, absent more compelling proof to the contrary, some mention should be made that Styx has been widely cited as the first rock band to have four consecutive triple-platinum albums. There are far more worrisome POV shenanigans going on with this article to quibble over this generally-accepted claim. Just my two cents. 71.125.152.107 03:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RIAA doesn't track anything more than "multi-platinum" --- that's the fact, jack, and it's cited to prove it. So what you're saying is that since so many people believe the legend and print the legend, Wikipedia should disregard the source that creates the facts and print the legend??? This is a prime example of the "fact-by-fiat" rule that unfortunately permeates a large portion of Wikipedia, wherein as long as a majority of the users agree to an answer, that answer becomes the definitive fact. You can believe all you want that a particular answer is a fact, and you can gather a lot of support for your position, but your belief alone doesn't make it a fact --- remember the parable about "the king who wore no clothes?" An encyclopedia and any reputable news source uses cited facts to prove its statements. The RIAA would be the ultimate source of album sales figures for the record industry, and the statement you're alluding to doesn't exist in reality in the RIAA archives. Contributions like this (mainly by people like you who refuse to log in & stand behind their statements) is why Wikipedia is considered a search engine by reputable sources more than a true encyclopedia.--Bamadude 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the wording: "Styx has been widely cited as the first rock band to have four consecutive triple-platinum albums." This is a fact. Is the widely-cited claim itself correct? We can't prove it one way or another based on the (extremely limited) available sources on the Internet. You've shown that the RIAA database is inconclusive; they don't make archival sales figures available to the granularity we require. Supporting evidence ("evidence", not "proof") is the fact that the claim has been made for 25 years, on behalf of a popular band that draws well more than its share of critical scorn, but to my knowledge no one (until you) has challenged it seriously. A Google search turns up no skepticism of the claim outside of this page, and if any other band turned the feat before Styx, then they, their management, their publicists, their record company, and their fans appear to have remained puzzlingly silent in the intervening quarter-century. To sum up: widespread citations through the rock media for 25 years, with no firm supporting evidence available via the RIAA's web site, but with some anecdotal supporting evidence, some inconclusive evidence, and little if any contradictory evidence of any sort. Thus, the claim does belong in Wikipedia or any "true encyclopedia", but worded in a way to suggest it is a popular citation which we WP authors have not been able to verify independently owing to incomplete record-keeping. You are welcome to add an entire section to the article if you wish, analyzing the claim and presenting evidence for and against its veracity. Please lay off the ad hominem attacks and holier-than-thou preaching in your response, if you can -- all you are managing to do is to alienate me along with all the others you've already done. Perhaps we do need to call in a WP moderator and have them adjudicate this, because I respectfully believe your attitude is getting well out of hand. Dpiranha 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are advocating that we "print the legend" even though RIAA doesn't track such records and there is no official evidence through RIAA that such a claim is true. This is preposterous at best and would be grounds for libel if it were a damaging statement as you have no reliable source for it. The fact is, there is no proof of the claim that Styx was "the first band to have 4 consecutive triple-platinum albums" because the statistic does NOT officially exist, so why post "widely-acceptable" myths just to make you happy? They are the first to obtain Multi-Platinum status with 4 consecutive albums as that statistic does exist, and that fact has been posted as the compromise, by myself at that, even though I find it dubious as it's only by the skin of their teeth and obvious paperwork issues at the RIAA that it's true as Foreigner should have been first per my research above. Find a source for your claim at RIAA and I'll post the damn thing myself. You people have to stop treating opinions and urban legands as facts; there are literally thousands upon thousands of pages on Wikipedia that do not have cited statements and this has got to stop if you want a reliable source of info about anything. Start your own fan site and tell the world Styx is the greatest rock-n-roll band in the world and DDY is the world's greatest keyboardist/singer/writer & that they were the first band to have 4 consecutive triple-platinum albums; just don't do it here per WP:Verifiability, and I didn't make that rule up.--Bamadude 23:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

More strawman arguments, more ad hominem attacks. I am trying to be patient with you because your quest for accuracy is admirable, even if I find your behavior exasperating. I'm not here with any pro/anti-DDY/TS/JY/Styx/any other agenda; save those rants for the fanboys and keep your silly paranoia away from me. Let's stop and review the facts.

Until recently, WP printed that Styx was the first band to have four consecutive triple-platinum albums certified by the RIAA. You did some research on the RIAA's limited online database and demonstrated that this was patently false. The RIAA does not "certify" albums as triple-platinum, just gold/plat/multiplat/diamond. Moreover (though I saw no mention of it above), the RIAA only added the multiplat certification in October of 1984, three years after Paradise Theater. NO album could have been certified multiplat prior to that date, thus the race for any "firsts" in that category was merely among beancounters and bookkeepers. Therefore, any association of the RIAA with this claim needs to be removed - agreed.

However, the underlying claim was that Styx was the first band to have four consecutive triple-platinum albums - a claim that predates October of 1984, and which is neither proved nor disproved by your research. "Triple platinum" is an industry term meaning 3 million units verified sold, which has passed into popular usage. Styx unquestionably had four consecutive triple-platinum albums in the period 1977 to 1981; they made no live, greatest hits, Christmas, or limited-release albums that could have interrupted the streak. The question is whether or not they were the first band to do so. For a truly unassailable proof or refutation, we'd need exact dates of the 3 millionth sale of every album throughout history, and no industry source makes information this granular available on the Web. We seem unable to prove it or disprove it directly, in other words, and I don't feel like rehashing the empirical evidence that supports or casts doubt on it - scroll up if you're interested.

So we are left with a very old, widely circulated claim that we can neither verify nor refute independently. To print it as a proven fact, or to associate it with the RIAA, is wrong. To omit it from Styx's entry entirely is, to borrow your phrase, preposterous. After 25 years of circulation, comprising thousands if not tens of thousands of citations throughout the Web and the music press, the claim cannot simply be ignored by WP because of one person's skepticism. It is beyond presumptuous to assume that just because no one has made the necessary historical sales data available to a random Internet user in 2007 that an A&M Records, Billboard, RIAA, or other music industry executive in 1981 didn't have the necessary data at their fingertips. Therefore, we need to find the right wording that acknowledges the popularity and persistence of the claim but which takes no position on its veracity. My suggestion for the opening paragraph remains: "Styx is widely cited to be the first band to have four consecutive triple-platinum albums." This is an incontrovertible fact, not a legend, please educate yourself on the difference. If you dislike this proposed neutral wording, I'm open to suggestions. I'm also inviting you to add a short, objective analysis of the claim and why it must be taken as an assertion rather than as dogma. The mere act of adding "widely cited" to the Wikipedia bio would go a long way. The current "compromise" you unilaterally added, perhaps well-meaningly, is doing more harm than good - it is a completely useless factoid celebrating a bookkeeper's triumph, as you have already demonstrated, and needs to be removed.

Lastly, even if tomorrow you proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the claim was false, we still must make mention of it in the article because of its widespread circulation for a quarter-century. To omit it would condemn WP readers and researchers from ever learning the truth. We'd write, "For many years, Styx was cited as the first band blah blah, but it was shown in 2007 by BamaDude that Up With People had previously done so in 1978." But, you cannot stuff this particular genie back into the bottle after all this time. Dpiranha 05:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, leave that in. Seems like a lot of trouble over one word. At least you point out that the source is unofficial garbage and that you're "printing the legend", nothing more than an "argument for argument's sake", hardly encyclopedic and hardly worth days of print and time much less the space it gets at the bottom of the article. Now let's address the fanism section on DDY's keyboard technique, like there's any identifiable technique he possesses (that wasn't ripped off others) that's valuable to Styx, that has valid sources for the comments other than a fan site (probably a good place to cite fanisms), and like it belongs anywhere except DDY's page . . . maybe.--Bamadude 03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section on the 4x3M claim

I've added a new section to the article regarding Styx and their four consecutive multi-platinum / triple-platinum albums. I hope this facts-only, NPOV-worded, multi-citation passage satisfies everyone's objections and arguments, but if not, please let's discuss it here for a day or two before we begin with free-for-all edits and reverts. Fair enough? Dpiranha 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, leave it --- see above section, last paragraph.--Bamadude

[edit] VANDALISM here & at related STYX pages

A small, select few Dennis DeYoung and/or Styx fans are trashing Tommy Shaw, James Young & Styx pages. Please confine your remarks to those which address the article itself and that can be cited using a neutral POV and please don't trash the Tommy Shaw or JY pages nor trash Tommy & JY on the Styx or DDY pages or they will probably all be nominated for indefinite locking, including the DDY page if the trash spills over there, which nobody who really cares about DDY, JY, Tommy or Styx want. It appears to be nothing more than a couple of young, anonymous individuals who have self-esteem issues that are intent on imposing their will and interjecting their uncited, POV remarks so the world will know how they feel, which is sad, but not amusing nor relevant to the articles.--Bamadude 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This, by the guy who cries "All Dennis Deyoung fans are little girls" below. This opinionated jerk is the one currently editing all of the styx related pages with his creepy obsession of Tommy Shaw. He has switched his "identity" on wikipedia many times (remember Marvtixx anyone?). Please do not let him keep spinning these pages to make his obsession, Tommy Shaw, look like the guy who is responsible for all of Styx's triumphs (you know, like She Cares, Cold War, and the current incarnation playing 20 minute set-ups for foreigner and Def Leppard). He is constantly "editing" discussion pages to make it look like he always gets the last word. Don't let him continue. He is a longtime vandal of these pages. --66.32.27.118 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss the situation. The problem here is that your discussion posts have nothing to do with any articles and your article posts have nothing to do with reality or cited facts --- you're just mad that I (and many others, BTW) revert your totally opinionated, unsourced, negative comments. Read the above post for proof positive of that and look at ALL the edits you've made to various articles to see that your job is to simply be a pain in the ass, nothing more. Show me one instance, just one, of where you have a legitimate comment or fact-based, cited edit about anything you've posted under your anonymous account. Show me that you can act like rational human being and I'll leave your edits alone. I don't know how you'll present that argument as you have nothing in any of your posts that show credibility, character or class. You've already caused one article to get locked indefinitely, try a little harder & I'm betting every article you've touched will be locked in short order.--Bamadude 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you really need to stop believing your own lies. The TS page is locked because YOU petitioned for it to be locked because you can't face the facts that the current version of "Styx" is controversial - something COMPLETELY verifiable, no matter how much you love Tommy Shaw. It is totally encyclopedic to mention that not all fans have accepted this version of the band. Comparing this to 1975 when JC left the band is idiotic - we are talking about the period of the band that was the most popular band in America for the better part of an era. Fans are bound to be pissed when 2 members continue on without the member who wrote, sang, and produced much of what made them popular.

Aside from this - YOU are the one who is CONSTANTLY bashing DDY and DDY fans then blaminng DDY fans for what you perceive as TS bashing when its nothing more than a reaction to what they perceive as blatent backstabbing by Tommy and JY.

And lets also not pretend that Bamadude is your first identity here on wikipedia - IP addresses don't lie, dude.

I think its great that you love TS so much. I like him too. I thought the new Shaw/Blades was classic TS and a great album. Having said that, I am a Styx fan who thinks that this VERSION of STyx is a slap in the face of the band that most of us are fans of (even more than Gilmour's Pink Floyd and Iomi's version of Blac Sabbath in the '80s).

And before you get high and mighty about being civil - "Keep the broadway pop feeling alive" "I thought all DDY fans were little girls" "Most editor are dorks"

You can threaten me all you like about constantly deleting my stuff - but thats okay. You don't know WHICH wikipedia user I am - I know who you are. And if that's not enough, you are thinking that these anonymous edits you are fighting is from one person - wrong again. There are a few of us and we know how to deal with the kind of thing you have been doing for so long. You can't just stumble across wikipedia and decide that you are the king of the entry. (Kind of like when you completely deleted the ORIGINAL TS entry - which was originally worked on by a die-hard TS fan, BTW). SO you have pissed off a lot of people in the past.

See you on a "history" soon. --66.32.110.184 02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you log in and stand behind what you write instead of using multiple anonymous IP addresses? If what you say is so important and truthful and if you want others to believe in it, how can they when you won't even stand behind them yourself??

How's this for civility --- tell me what you want to add or change on the Tommy Shaw page and cite the changes you have in mind. Also any other changes/additions you have in mind for other Styx-related sites. Write here exactly what wording you propose and what the cited, reputable source is. If you feel that there's a legitimate media controversy about Tommy Shaw & JY using the Styx name or whatever, cite your sources and I'm all for you adding verifyable, legitimate content anywhere. I don't want to delete all your entries, just the ones that don't belong, i.e., the ones you make up in your mind with no legitimate sourcing; you're still quoting opinions & using them as the backbone of your argument in your rambling statement above and elsewhere. Quoting fan pages and the like, depending on the content, are not legitimate sources, and adding yours or others personal opinions would not be a legitimate entry either. I'd enjoy hearing comments on your proposed additions from others.--Bamadude 12:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

None of us are going to give up our anonymity because we know how you'd handle it. You would cozy up to an administrator and have us locked out of pages. I don't think any of us want to get your permission to add back the stuff that you unilaterally decided to take out. We have worked a long time to build these pages and when you come in and just decide that the facts aren't complimentary enough to your favorite member of the band and delete things, then we have a problem. If you want verifyable sources - look at ANY article on either DDY or the Styx 5.1 and you will see that there is considerable controversy. Hell, go look at a Styx blog! FACTS ARE: This Styx has NOT been accepted by the masses (that is why they are relegated to opening for a Lou Gramless foreigner). So those are MY proposed additions - "66", do you have anything to add? 131.91.94.130 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm done with this war for awhile. The reason wikipedia works is that eventually, those with an agenda like "bama" go away and the truth comes back. He'll eventually become another identity and scream how everyone is being unfair to Tommy Shaw and accuse us all of doing what he, himself, is guilty of. But - judging by TS's latest interview on Melodic Rock.com it seems like even HE doesn't care about Styx anymore so its probably a moot point. New styx will go the way of other incarnations of once great bands (Asia, Pink Floyd, Journey) and just kind of peter out. I wonder if "Bama" will still be on wikipedia (you know, where people who ave no lives spend their day - according to his user page) fighting the fight to keep this version of Styx as "legitimate". I'm done for now. You "win", Bama. --66.32.110.184 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

State the facts you want to add to the article for anyone who frequents this page to see and let everybody decide for themselves what cited facts you have to back up your arguments as you've submitted nothing other than you're unhappy that DDY isn't in Styx anymore. Also, it's funny that you use several anonymous IP addresses and then "turn the mic over" to yourself and allow some time between posts so it doesn't seem obvious. ;-) --Bamadude 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock-n-Roll & Drugs

I am a newbie here, so bear with me. Is it...gauche...? to mention the drug sub-culture that many RR bands/artists were influenced by, and reflected that in their works? (example, Snowblind). Is there a topic that covers Rock & underlying drug culture, and how it affected music in the 70's-90's?

Also, does anyone have/know what musical influences impacted the band members in their early lives? Styx has a unique sound and it would be interesting to know what artists/bands or other music they each listened to that shaped their future sound? Can anyone help with this and add it to the Bio? Pedianut 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)pedianut

[edit] Family Guy

Styx was featured on an episode of Family Guy in which Dennis DeYoung calls in to a hotline to bash KISS, but with a British voice.

I saw that episode, and Dennis didn't have a British voice. It sounded like plain American. Should we put "without a British voice", or what? --71.252.134.171 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest: Fake/artificial British Accent? Pedianut 04:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)pedianut

[edit] With Rush

Styx toured with Rush

  Really? when was that?

It was at some point in the 70's. If you have a copy of Rush "Different Stages" There is a booklet with pictures of tickets and band pics, one of the Posters on top of a framed 2112 album says RUSH, and then a bit below Styx.

In Fact, here are the dates Styx toured with Rush

---> http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/Tourdates.htm#2112

March 25, 1976 Medford Armory. Medford, Oregon (Styx, Sutherland Brothers Quiver) March 27, 1976 Gonzaga University. Spokane, Washington (Styx) March 28, 1976 Paramount Theater. Seattle, Washington (Styx) March ???, 1976 Tacoma National Guard Armory. Tacoma, Washington (Styx) June 5, 1976 University of Texas Memorial Gym. El Paso, Texas (Styx)

The final date is actually the one from the poster, I found a larger image here

http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/tours/76jun5_poster.jpg

I also have them playing together on Sep 03, 1976 Dayton, OH Hara Arena w/BOC, Rush

http://styxtoury.com/performances/styx/1976.html

It also makes some sense that the Tacoma date is the 29th seeing Rush played on the 30th.

[edit] New Album = I Am A Warrus

(Warrus spleed wrong, I'm a f**king idiot). I saw Styx recently on Current/Classic on VH1 Classic, they made a cover of "I Am A Walrus." (hey I spelled it right this time)

Styx made a whole album of covers called The Big Bang Theory. Gbeeker 13:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory are the only cover songs styx ever did

Ummm, wrong. "Lies" was recorded and they use to do a bunch of covers back when Styx was really Styx.

The Beatles cover is called "I Am The Walrus". The cover album is called "Big Bang Theory" (No 'the')

"Not Dead Yet" from Edge of the Century was also a cover.Styxfannh 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)styxfannh

[edit] Dennis, the identity of Styx??? No way!

Styx without Dennis DeYoung against his will? I know the current members do not like to hear it, but for many of those fans who made Styx a household name it simply seems wrong.

The way I see it, it's perfectly fine if Shaw and Young like each other, share the same creative ideology and want DeYoung out of their group. The problem is that the name they use for their band is mostly identified in the public eye with DeYoung, because DeYoung was the creator/frontman of most of what made Styx famous. Additionally, Shaw stepped into the band after it was established with a DeYoung-penned hit, and yet another DeYoung Top 10 hit happenned after Shaw's first leave of absence.

Perhaps proof of what I say here is the fact that if you see a Styx concert today, quite ironically, you hear some of DeYoung's compositions-although possibly less than the audience wishes. If you see DeYoung's solo concerts you do not hear anyone else's compositions and may well be more reminiscent of the original Styx.

I would respect Shaw and Young more if they had the courage to at least use a variation of the name Styx. Otherwise what they do is unethical.

Ridiculous. Dennis DeYoung actually is the reason Styx is a JOKE in virtually all Rock circles. They are a considered a Pop band ONLY because of his influence. He refused to tour because he's "allergic to bright lights" and sold the rights to his share of the band via legal channels, so he's not a part of Styx because HE essentially CHOSE not to be as they weren't interested in playing show tunes anymore or waiting for him to invest in sunglasses. Broadway is his calling, which fits in with the rest of his oeuvre. "Babe" is a joke pop song as bad as "Silly Love Songs", as is virtuallt all of his material from a purely Rock viewpoint. He wrote ONE hit single (which wasn't recognized until years later as hit material) and the ONLY reason they became mainstream stars is because of the talent of Tommy Shaw being added to the band as they didn't have any arena sales clout or hit albums prior to his arrival, so DDY fans should consider the facts before they vent their frustrations. Another consideration is that the Panozzo brothers as musicians were disposable, i.e., easily replaceable and non-essential to the sound or composing, so the main progenitors of the music/sound were DeYoung, Young & Shaw. 2 of those 3 are still there --- that's a very legitimate lineup and the ticket sales prove that point.Bamadude 01:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This opinionated jerk is the one who keeps editing this page. Go put up a Tommy Shaw fan site and leave the facts alone. You can put up all the naked pictures of him you want. Oh, and you're right - Styx is a POP band only because of Dennis. I forgot about the rock'n'roll triumphs of "She Cares", "Sing For The Day", and "Haven't We Been Here Before". Yeah, Tommy just "wants to rock"! That's why when he finally releases his own solo album free of Dennis's pop influences, he includes such rockers as "Little Girl World", "Lonely School", and "Girls With Guns". Pure rockin' madness! I just can't listen to him because his heavy heavy rockin' roll makes my eardrums bleed. YOU are a joke. --66.32.110.38 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe DDY exactly "sold his rights to the band legally". He was forced out of the "band" because of illness and then, logically IMO, sued. I am not a "fan", I truly believe that T. Shaw and J. Young have been unethical, opportunistic and hypocritical in the use of the brand name.

And I thought all of DDY's fans were little girls.--Bamadude 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album art table

I put in tables showing the album art in the "Discography" section. For some reason, even though all three tables are identical in the markup, some browsers show the first one to be narrower across the screen (and some do not) than the others. Perhaps someone who's better at tables than I can address this. 4.237.207.249 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is by me. I don't know how I got logged out. Dyfsunctional 18:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consummative tastes?

One Styx cd I have claims they were suspected of having consummatove tastes... I have no clue how this applies to Styx. If someone could kindly tell me, I'd be really grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.14 (talk • contribs)

It's "consummate" and it was a tongue-in-cheek comment by a music critic (I don't recall who). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song meanings

Did you know Light Up is about marijuana and snowblind a song agaisnt cocaine

I think everyone who's heard those songs knows that ;) Kouban 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Snowblind" is not about drug use --- ask J.Y. about that.--Bamadude 23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charts

I think we need to agree on one chart. The standard is Billboard's Hot 100 chart for singles and the Billboard Top 200 album charts for albums. There are about a thousand other charts and other chart companies, but billboard is standard. Also - If billboard charts from other parts of the world are used, they should be cited. Saying "Boat On The River" charted in England (It actually charted on the "Europe" chart) is not sufficient. Saying "Mr. Roboto" was a "Big hit in Japan" is also not encyclopedic. 98percenthuman 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Styx album

anyone have any info on the new styx album?

   Well, I heard on the radio a few weeks agon that the new 

album might be out in March. Blah blah236 00:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

JY said on a Rockline interview (www.rocklineradio.com) promoting the CYO CD & DVD in November 2006 that they were looking more toward releasing singles than making fans wait until they had an entire albums worth of material. Styxfannh 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Really Nice STYX FAN SITE Indeed

Hey 98% dude, I can't believe this article is even posted, much less overseen by a real encyclopedic brain like you. It starts OK for a few paragraphs, but then reads like a Styx teen fansite, preferably one who worships Dennis DeYoung like you do. There's a ton of opinionated, biased remarks that's better suited for the Styx Fanzine Newsletter. There isn't a speck of cited material in this article; whoever played a part in writing it (you??) should find credible sources to cite at least one line or two, or it should be deleted. Let me jump on only a few of the "factoids", which by way aren't "small facts"; they're sound bites masquerading as facts: Selectively picking out the top 8 highest-charting songs and saying that 7 of them were top 10 songs written by DeYoung and 1 by Shaw is a "selective factoid" used to distort the truth in DDY's favor by turning a half-truth into an alleged fact, not to mention that DDY's candy-coated pop/ballad style is more favorable to chart success anyway. The other 4 Styx members hated those songs enough to fire him after 'Babe' went #1 as DDY + A&M sold them out down the pop ballad river (they hired him back 2 weeks later, the idiots), as if the rock critics didn't already hate them enough before 'Babe'; read Lester Bangs' article in Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/styx/albums/album/103504/review/5945211) if you don't believe me - this was only 1 of hundreds I read that hated Styx's corporate rock, though I was a fan of their better (read:rock) material. But the "factoid" also mainly implies that DeYoung has had 700% more success as a songwriter (which isn't true) and also implies that if a song doesn't make the top 10 (which doesn't exist as a barometer for this logical reason) that it isn't a successful song, which is utterly ridiculous. The fact is that DDY & Shaw both wrote 5 Top 40 songs each during their tenure together, which is a real berometer of hit song success, and Styx fired DeYoung TWICE for his pop/Broadway/sappy songwriting. Also LUUUVVV that section about "DeYoung's Keyboard Technique", as if he actually had one; he couldn't carry Rick Wakeman's sustain pedal; take it from a keyboardist since 1978, which means I was around & making a living playing serious music when all this stuff was happening. Let's see if we can get this one cited first: "'Come Sail Away' is often cited (where??) as the ultimate Styx song, mixing balladry with the theatrical flair of art rock and lyrics which take the listener on a journey that combines dreams, science fiction imagery, and religious undertones." Wait, I can cite that --- www.StyxWorld.com/BS.html, I'm betting - nice words with a real encyclopedic flair. Oh yeah, in response to the comment below about the use of the name STYX --- DDY was fired by a majority of the remaining legal bandmembers/shareholders (e.g., JY & Shaw); that's why he can't use it. It's also because people don't come to the shows and scream "Play 'Babe', Play 'Babe'" --- they come to hear Blue Collar Man, Renegade, Miss America, Snowblind, anything that resembles rock, because unlike pop, rock never dies; ask Elvis. Marvtixx 05:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are just as pro Tommy Shaw as the other writer is pro Dennis DeYoung. Sorry dude, but NO FANS are coming to hear Snowblind at a Styx concert. It wasn't even a hit. And as far as the top 10 singles go, it is a completely factual statement. Top 10 singles are huge hits. Dennis DeYoung wrote the biggest Styx hits. Period. Deal with it. Tommy Shaw wrote a few good songs. BUT THE MAJORITY OF STYX's success lies with Dennis DeYoung. And yes, many people do go to Styx concerts wanting to hear Babe and are disappointed its not played. It was Styx's biggest selling single and their only #1 hit. And get your facts straight about top 40 hits. Billboard says Styx have had 16 top 40 hits. Eleven by DDY, 5 by TS. The majority of the songs on Styx Greatest Hits - their version of their greatest hits - are written and sung by DDY - 10 DDY, 5 TS. And you are also wrong about Damn Yankees outselling Styx on the road. Oh, and by the way, Tommy Shaw was a supporting member of that band too - that band was all about Ted Nugent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.53.161 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:NPA, as soon as possible. Also, get your facts straight: Damn Yankees was a so-called "supergroup" because of established musicians like Jack Blades, Michael Cartellone, Ted Nugent and Tommy Shaw—and I named all four from memory. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you are referencing WP:NPA. The post was legit with legitimate facts. It is true - DDY had more success in Styx than TS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.53.161 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure why you're not sure given that, in the edit you've just made, you removed the sentence, "So, please get your head out of Tommy's butt and face the facts." Wikipedia keeps a history of every edit made, and you've just tried to cover up one of yours. Not a wise move... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.53.161 (talk • contribs)

It is a statement of fact; argumentam ad hominem followed by the intentional act of covering it up is demonstrative of trolling (as opposed to editing). Any editor who regularly engages in such activity is subject to blocking under WP:NPA, WP:POINT and/or WP:TROLL. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Furry Roadkill 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Added hyperlink to South Park parody.

I was just at a Dennis De Young concert and he is terrific and for Tommy Shaw to be able to use the name STYX instead of Dennis is just plain wrong. Dennis came up with the name and formed the group , let Tommy find something else. Lets see how good he is with out the name behind him!!!!!

RESPONSE: How about "Damn Yankees", 2 platinum albums, people buying more tix now to see Styx than they did in 1996 when DDY was still with them and they had to get out of arena tours because they couldn't sell enough tix for the "Return To Paradise" tour because nobody much wanted to return to a Broadway parody masked as a rock album. Marvtixx 05:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

64.136.27.229 09:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC) "while mainstream rock fans admired his fluent songwriting, reminiscent of Neil Young." Uhhhh... WHAT THE F___? I don't think that kind of talk is called for! Those campy, tacky, stupid faux sci-fi crap! How can this be compared to Neil Young? I'm deleting that sentence because it is the craziest thing I have ever heard. What a campy bullsh*t piece of garbage "band". Styx is obviously the worst band EVER and they don't deserve a page this long! The worst singing and tackiest guitar ever. This is an outrage to mankind, and kudos to Homer.

Indeed, the sentence should be purged; it's POV without a citation from a notable person who made the comparison. Fortunately, it's not nearly the POV with which you showed up. Unless you can edit this article with impartiality and emotionless detachment, my suggestion would be that you stick with articles where you can. RadioKirk talk to me 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crappy First Sentence!!!

Holy jeez can we get an edit for a one sentence description of Styx?--Htmlism 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? I think it is good the way it is nowBlah blah236 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironically,

I count four incorrect usages of "ironically". I'll leave it to someone else to re-draft the relevant sentences, if anyone cares to do so. --63.25.25.62 18:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You should have explained to them that "ironically" refers to an incident that is opposite to the expected result and maybe they would've gotten it right. In other words, being a diabetic driver and getting killed by a truck full of sugar is coincidence and possibly even expected, but getting killed by a truck full of insulin would be ironic. I heard that description; I didn't make it up, but it really gets the point across about irony. For the record, Alanis Morissette doesn't know what being ironic is either.Bamadude 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shamisen

Can it be explained why it says that Tommy Shaw plays the shamisen? On which tracks? Badagnani 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tommy appeared on a Japanese TV show called "Best Hit USA". On the 200th episode, Tommy appeared playing a shamisen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHwGpLDaiEk Styxfannh 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Edits

Information about the origins of Styx up to the 1980s was repeated TWICE more before the contents box template shows up. I deleted that redundant information and I suggest that the template contents box be moved to just after the introductory paragraph, with a new section, "Beginnings" added as the first section. Then the article would look and flow better.--A.T. Horsfield 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I went through the article and placed notices on areas that need citation to prove that they are NPOV. Also, take a look at some of the wordings, especially things like greatest success, those things need cited to stand as NPOV. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 03:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template?

This band seems to be have enough information for its own template. I would make it myself except I have no clue how to make templates... could someone with template experience maybe create a Styx template? Xnux 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Styx Sound / DeYoung's Keyboard Techniques

I've purged this section as a total fancruft piece, with all possible respect to its author; this was written in unsubstantiated superlatives that would only be encyclopedic if they quoted experts and presented an opposing viewpoint, and if each member received a similar section. As it was, the section would not have been acceptable even in DeYoung's own article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is an old edit and the info has been restored by the user below.--Bamadude 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I had included a section on the keyboard techniques quite awhile ago - but only as it pertained to the musical stylings of Styx - something very encyclopedic. Someone had come along a changed it to the fan-site stuff that is on now. Perhaps we could revise it back to the old paragraph (which was all documented with reliable sources -keyboard magazone, etc.)

User:98percenthuman

Sure, feel free; anything else notable, though, like Shaw's guitar work and/or songwriting, Panozzo's (and perhaps Sucherman's) drumming, etc., should be included—brief, relevant and cited. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that something like Shaw or Young's guitar techniques could warrant inclusion - as they contribute to the overall unique "Styx sound". Giving a section to Todd Sucherman might be a stretch as I'm not sure his drumming is integral to what the general public consider the Styx sound.User:98percenthuman

I was being facetious. A little. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 98%, I'm going to have to go after you again for your POV opinions in this article. I've been a musician and keyboardist (and frustrated guitarist) for 30 years, and as long as you're going to print your opinions, in my own opinion (which I'm sure has way more life & music experience than yours), Styx's sound is not due solely to DDY's keyboards and especially not his techniques, or should I say lack thereof (ibid). Many bands have the same organ or synthesizor sounds, many before Styx arrived; the Oberheim synthesizors were in everybody's stable of keys in the 70's including Yes, ELP, ELO, and mine included (I had an OB-X & my favorite, the Prophet 5 in 1979), and the B-3 sound Dennis used in "Blue Collar Man" is a total (and IMO, lame) ripoff of Deep Purple's Jon Lord's overdriven Leslie sound with heavily-percussive stops engaged running a split through a overdriven tube guitar amp also (some just used the Leslie and beefed it up). Yes, Styx's unique sound could be attributed slightly to DeYoung's keyboards, but mostly it's A) their vocal harmonies; B) DDY's lead vocal (yes, I said it, because I believe it to be true); C) more than anything, the solid "marching" drum & bass backbeat signature by the Panozzo brothers gets zero credit, but that's what people really recognize, even though it's mainly a style rather than a playing ability that catches your ear as it's simplistic at best. It's also a point that Tommy Shaw's acoustic guitar and vocal is a vital part of the sound as is JY's guitar sound from "Renegade" and elsewhere, just like any other band. DDY & Shaw's songwriting is unique and a part of it.

But none of that means anything. The section is REALLY just a smokescreen to get you to believe the REAL 2 reasons why that section exists:

1) It's just fluff created simply to pound the point home by the creator of this section (98%) that, in his opinion, DDY was the reason they were successful & was their fearless leader, both of which are not true, except that DDY was the visual leader on-stage, and . . .

2) The section's main reason is to add more wording about DDY to turn the spotlight on him by his fan, the creator of the section so he can interject his opinion that DDY was the "sound of Styx" and the reason for all their success.

Now that's just my opinion above, and I vote for it to be removed as a POV fan piece as any content therein is strictly POV, but to stay it should be retitled as "The Styx Sound" or something similar and totally reworked to include the full elements of it as mentioned above and some citations added to back it up so that we aren't filling up a segment with our opinions again. I'm not alone --- read the other comments in this section written long before me. BTW, Keyboard Magazine is a magazine of opinions also, not a biblical tome for keyboardists. I had a scrip to it some 30 years ago myself & I felt that many of the articles were total POV rubbish reviews done to sell items manufactured by its own advertisers.--Bamadude 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02 on this: I agree with BamaDude's view that the section belongs on DDY's page, not here. I don't agree with all his reasons, assumptions, suspicions, and veiled accusations, but that's another matter. Lack of citations aside, the section simply doesn't add enough to an encyclopedia entry about Styx the band. Adding similar personalized sections for TS, JY, CP, and JP would make the article longer but not better. A section on "The Styx Sound" would be a worthwhile replacment, if someone cares to have a go at it. It'll give us something new to argue about, if nothing else. Dpiranha 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite what Bama thinks here - Dennis Deyoung's keyboard technique in STYX songs was influential to Keyboardists. Thus, this belongs in a Styx article - not a DDY article. Styx's signature keyboard sound can be attributed to DDY. If Bama or anyone else thinks there should be a Tommy Shaw guitar technique section - I would not be against it. I would add it myself,but I don't know of any citations about TS's guitar technique. JY actually probably has some (his technique was fairly influential).

Deleting this is an example of ignoring citable facts because they paint a member that Bama does not like in a positive light. This is POV. You can't cite SOME citable facts but not others in order to spin a point of view. As for me and Journalism school- it seems like Bama may have went to the FOX school of journalism ("no spin" with lots of it). --98percenthuman 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm always open to negotation and a fair compromise: Why don't you take Dpiranha's wonderful advice and move that entire section to DDY's page and I won't touch it --- deal? I see nothing in your argument citing anything but your opinion and it doesn't belong on the Styx page anyway. The real source of their unique sound (in my opinion) that I mentioned above earlier is a way-better explanation that the myth you created and is infinently more important that DDY's keys, and I'm not printing that because it's POV and I know it.--Bamadude 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are, indeed, open to negotation, why don't we have a section on all of the aspects of the unique Styx sound. Keep the DDY keyboard technique section, retitle it "The Styx sound" and add a section on the three part Styx harmony. I would be in favor of that. --98percenthuman 00:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You could take the points I outlined above, but then we're creating a section that has no citations and is totally opinionated, original research, which I'm totally against, but if we're hell-bent on doing this, here's the finer points that make the Styx sound (IMO), in order of importance:

• 1) The vocal harmonies are the main signature of their sound.
• 2) The solid-but-simple drum & bass backbeat by the Panozzos.
• 3) DDY's lead vocal.
• 4) Tommy Shaw's 6 & 12-string acoustic guitar work.
• 5) JY's guitar sound.
• 6) DDY's keyboard sound.
• 7) The songwriting styles of DDY, Shaw & JY.

It's still a lot of fanism & POV and doesn't belong here in an alleged encyclopedic article unless you find someone who would be considered an expert (as everybody thinks they are, including yours truly) who has quoted something along these lines in a "respectable & noted" publication, and who would that be?--Bamadude 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a slightly different tack? The article could be improved with a broad section on Styx's reception among critics (generally thought to be low, but see below), fellow musicians (generally high), and their cultural impact (generally strong, but "___ In Popular Culture" sections are a magnet for tripe so I'm loathe to add one to this article.) The article serves as a biography at the moment, but there's little that puts Styx in the broader rock-and-roll context, and that is the logical next step.

Actually, I started a little pre-research tonight and I was surprised at what I found. Styx's most popular albums, particularly TGI and PT, seem to have received decent reviews overall from contemporary professional rock critics. As a band, they were labeled as "corporate rock" by a cabal of trendy and (in theory) influential critics of the day, Rolling Stone's Dave Marsh among them. I found numerous articles of the era in which they were served up as an archetypical example of everything that was wrong with Rock & Roll (usually by a critic about to slobber over the latest hot punk/new wave artist.) But with the exception of "Kilroy", which drew many strong negative reviews but a few very positive ones too, and "Cornerstone", which was often cited as "uneven" (no argument here), the surviving contemporary reviews don't bear out the conventional wisdom that "all rock critics hated them." Moreover, reviews from latter-day professional critics have been by and large positive, as one would expect since pop bands are ultimately judged by how well their music passes the test of time. All this underscores the difficulty of writing an objective, encyclopedic section on their legacy. Dpiranha 03:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I'm fine with a "The Styx Sound" section as 98%human suggests, but it needs to be objective, cited, and authoritative. Parts of the DDY Keyboard Technique section could be included, but I still think the full section belongs on DDY's page, where it is clearly relevant and not at all out of place. I enjoyed Bama's list of opinions about what makes the Styx sound - IMO, it's (1) The vocal harmonies, (2) The unusual blend of DDY's prog keyboards, JY's metal-driven guitars, and TS's blues-driven ones, (3) the Panozzos, who kept matters moving along, and (4) DDY's flair for the theatric, both for better and for worse. I think my opinions belong in the article at least as much as his...which is to say, not at all. :-) After all the turmoil of the past month, this new section is going to be either encyclopedic or nonexistant - nothing in between. Dpiranha 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all articles should be factual or omitted, but trying to make it factual by adding citations is impossible as it's a very-opinionated section and would only rely upon other people's opinions (although published, it's still opinion) to source it, and if you're selective as to which opinions you choose to source, you can drive the section where you want, which is a form of opinion by using "deconstructive editing" just like some editors of TV news magazines like "60 Minutes" use when they create a story --- edit in all the things you like, edit out (or show in a bad light) all the things you don't like; a slanted report, which is a very-common "yellow" journalism tool. This is not a fact-based section at all and never can be --- it's strictly a fan-based opinionated section; a fine line that can't be drawn.

The real compromise is to put it on DDY's page and let's agree to leave it alone just as "98%" wrote it as long as it has some kind of reasonably-authoritative source for the opinion to avoid the "original research" taboo, like maybe Keyboard Magazine or Rolling Stone or something similar, no fan web sites.--Bamadude 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the thing - musicians who are actually looking to wikipedia as a reference would find a section on the Styx sound a worthwhile addition. The DDY section was a straight forward explanation of how DDY arrived at his keyboard sound (which was unique - whether you think it was good or not). The section came directly from a keyboard magazine article furing the Return To Paradise tour. This article was REPRINTED on the Styx fansite because the web master was also a writer for Keyboard magazine. The article simply mentioned how DDY played keyboards. It was NOT an artcile which said "DDY's keyboards are the reason for Styx's unique sound. It was a completely NPOV look at a musicians technique. I think that this and any other techniacl music section belongs in this article (just as much as band histories do). I would implore you to look for any article on the musicianship of the other members of the band. I think that those passages would belong as well. I am certainly NOT in favor of ranking which techniques are the most important to the Styx sound - I AM in favor of a section on the technical aspects of the Styx sound (If you were looking up Charles Dickens, you would want information of his particular writing style). --98percenthuman 14:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation pretty well sums up that it's a DDY article --- put it there only and use the citation to Keyboard Magazine and close this subject; it's a good filler for his page anyway. Forget for a moment about the legitimacy of it (which I disputed as stated above) and realize that regardless of its value, it still has nothing to do with any other member of the band and doesn't belong on the Styx page.--Bamadude 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Come Sail Away - The Styx Anthology.jpg

Image:Come Sail Away - The Styx Anthology.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 Wikipedia articles 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 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)