Talk:Duran Duran

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duran Duran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626185804/http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=316 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=316
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Brown is very clearly not an official member of Duran Duran. Why is he listed in the members section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8D30:18B0:19BA:F1F0:AD45:F2 (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dom Brown 

message: Why is there no section on Reception or Criticism?  Was the article written by their management or record company?  Or would it just be so much longer that the rest of the article?  "Duran Duran sucks" was a defining reality of the 1980s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.90.8 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Reception or Criticism section? 

message: I'm pretty sure the membership chart uses orange (meaning drums) in several places where pink (meaning backing vocals) was intended. Basically all the orange not tied to Roger Taylor or Sterling Campbell should be pink as far as I can tell, with a couple possible exceptions in the band's very early history. 50.72.9.214 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong colours in membership chart? 

message: As Annie Nightingale said on BBC Fourhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p3br that Duran moved in the 80s from a New Romantic sound in a "white soul/funk" direction (i.e. they became a funk-pop or pop/funk band)...would you say that they should be classed as Sophisti-Pop as well?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophisti-Pop 

message: It seems likely that Duran Duran’s inspiration to call themselves by that name was due to the presence of Barbarella’s (the nightclub) in their home town of Birmingham as much as it was directly due to them being fans of the film itself. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barabarella’s Nightclub in Birmingham 

message: The redirect Durant Durant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Durant Durant]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In an article on a band with three people surnamed "Taylor" in it, referring to any of them by the surname only is bloody confusing.
Please either use first names, or both names, in referring to any particular Taylor.
If Wikipedia has a policy re naming, clearly this should be an exception... Spanghew2fs (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. That's how I wrote the articles for their first three albums; first names only unless there was another John, Andy, or Roger. Next time I'm available I can go through the article and make some copy-edits. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Using first names only seems rather casual to me in the article--like we are talking about our buds.  I think we should use full names whenever necessary to avoid last-name only confusion. Perm Dude (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:SAMESURNAME, it looks like it does say to use full names on all instances of unrelated individuals. So I might need to do some updating both here and at the album articles... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue should mostly be resolved now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taylorism 

message: As the maximum number of infobox genres is four per Template:Infobox musical artist, two must be removed. I suggest post-disco (as the latest addition besides new pop, which is objectively correct) and new wave, for essentially the same reason I gave here (namely, new wave was not something DD were ever associated with in the UK). Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Before a few weeks ago, I had actually never heard of the phrase "new pop" before, but reading through its page I guess it seems like an actual genre used to describe DD. Now I'm no expert in the definitions of genres, but I will say, when I was expanding the articles for DD's first three albums (especially DD and Rio), I found numerous sources that described the albums as new wave (never "new pop"). User:Popcornfud had this Pitchfork source that described the song "Rio" as "new pop" (and synth-pop), but Rio itself has been described as new wave here, here, and here, so I don't really think it's fair to say that DD were never described as new wave (at least imo). Plus, Robert Christgau only seemed to call them "new pop" retrospectively and not contemporarily, which seems to be the case with "new pop" as a genre itself. I also own and have read Steve Malins and Stephen Davis's biographies of the band and don't recall them ever mentioning "new pop". That's just my two cents. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never once seen a contemporaneous UK source, from the 80s, describe DD as 'new wave'. They were considered a pop group by just about everyone, and 'new pop' by music journalists and theorist types like Paul Morley. New pop was very much a contemporary term, and it's a shame the main wiki article relies mostly on that one Pitchfork article instead of the wealth of primary sources to be found if someone bothered to look in the archives of the NME, Melody Maker, etc. If you want to talk retrospection, it is the mass designation of hundreds of 80s pop bands as 'new wave' which is highly anachronistic. The idea that DD, Culture Club, or any of these groups were considered 'new wave' at the time is simply incorrect. At the time, they were largely perceived as the negation of Punk/New Wave. Look at Dave Rimmer's classic book about the New Pop, Like Punk Never Happened. Even if 'new pop' wasn't used much in the US (though here's an example from 1983), the preferred term in America seems to have been 'new music', not new wave. In the UK, as both a popular and journalistic term, New Wave was used alongside Punk in the late 70s, but after about 1980 it was not a way anyone talked or wrote about current bands. Certainly not Duran Duran. Andrew Collins of the Guardian even cites the formation of DD as a possible point marking the 'death of new wave'. Stuart Borthwick and Ron Moy say that 'After the monochrome blacks and greys of punk/new wave, synthpop was promoted by a youth media interested in people who wanted to be pop stars, such as Boy George and Adam Ant' (Granted, synthpop isn't very accurate for either George or Adam, but the authors were looking for a 'neutral' term and are basically talking about new pop). I'd also encourage you to read Vauxhall1964's comments on the New Order talk page I linked; he describes quite well how new wave was actually used at the time. There does also seem to be a bit of a US vs. UK difference going on here, which I've speculated on in several locations, but I would note that according to the quotations provided on the main wiki page for New wave music, American critics who were conscious of the New Wave during the late 70s like Christgau, Lester Bangs, and Chuck Eddy seem to agree with what I would consider the standard (or 'British') understanding. As DD were an English band, and as Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference work, it's my belief that the standard, UK understanding and the views of contemporary American critics (as opposed to retrospective sites like AllMusic) should be preferred over what seems to be a widespread misconception on the part of many Americans. Jinglyjangle (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to say, for any of the big new pop artists (to quote Marcello Carlin, "ABC, Adam Ant, Marc Almond and the Associates – and these are just the “A”s"), I would always back new pop over new wave where possible, if indeed the situation calls for one or the other, and think increased, reliably sourced use of new pop as a term would benefit Wikipedia. (The new pop article itself could be lent further insight from writers like Bob Stanley, Tom Ewing, Ian Penman, Morley himself and others but this is a different matter. It's also lamentable that Carlin, the greatest music writer of his generation and someone who has twice contemplated writing a new pop book, is largely self-published but there we are.)--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. WP would benefit from a good distinguishing from new wave and new pop. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to much in terms of 80s inkies sadly, but I can see if I can add further sources to New pop in the near future. I know Bob Stanley's first book has a chapter on new pop, and he's discussed it in numerous Guardian articles also. I'm imagining Matthew Lindsay's Quietus pages are another easy place for me to look.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I think I've come across some of Carlin's posts on ILM in the past (never posted there myself, but read some good discussions). I've just started a new Wikipedia discussion on the new wave/new pop/new romantic question here, so feel free to add your voice (to the sound of the crowd). Jinglyjangle (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply, very insightful (this genuinely is new to me). Every contemporary source I found for their first three albums I recall just using the standard "pop" label; new wave labels typically came from retrospective sources like AllMusic (as you said). This makes me want to dig deeper finding new sources about this new pop thing. With that being said though, numerous sources online (be them British or American), have described Duran Duran as new wave and WP is based around what other reliable sources say, so imo the new wave label should remain (especially with their being two sources supporting it atm). We have to go by both older and newer sources, and it seems to me newer sources have almost merged the new wave and new pop eras together. I'm also confused as to why I never saw the term "new pop" when researching for their first three albums when they've supposedly been new pop this whole time. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Duran Duran were not among the definitive New Pop artists championed by those most fond of the term, so you won't see it used as often with them as with, say, ABC or the Associates. But it is a label that some used for them, and it's certainly more accurate than 'New Wave'. Better yet would be 'New Romantic', along with synthpop and just 'pop', but Wikipedia doesn't seem to consider New Romantic(ism) a genre in its own right (which is ok by me, as long as it's not inexplicably conflated with 'new wave'). The standard 'pop' label makes sense as well, as the term was/is used very broadly in the UK - you'll often see groups like The Smiths referred to as a 'pop band', which is accurate in one sense (they made wonderful pop music), but they weren't 'pop' in what one would have called the 'chartpop' sense. Duran Duran, on the other hand, very much were. I just started a discussion about this on the Wiki music genre task force page, so feel free to add your voice (to the sound of the crowd). Jinglyjangle (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picking four genres