Talk:Pop music/Archive 1

message: Just because a music genre has the word 'pop' in it doesn't make it pop music. Pulseczar 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futurepop is not pop music 

message: pop is good in the respects that it can sell- pop is not about selling music- it's about selling a lifestyle, so how can you compare a lifestyle against music?  when you think of pop, your mind inclines the more you listen to a certain artist, the more and more you will become like that person.  another example is, a non-christian wouldn't listen to chrsitian music, right?  as you grow older, you grow out of pop music but pop music is really just jingle-writing, and it is selling a lifestyle.
please don't condemn pop.
I'm a jazz pianist; and I'll tell you one thing- it's not something you can have; how good you are determines whether you have the gift or not and how much effort you want and have to put in.  i learnt classical first then went into jazz.  if you are good at jazz- it can sound really good.  one thing however- jazz mucks around with technique you learn in classical; so my recommendation is not to do both!!
:Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 20:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pop- good or not? 

message: The as it stands the introduction is way too long. It should be broken up into sections. The table of pop music through time is a good idea, but would not make an article by itself. The recent "sub-genre" called pop should have it's own page. 
I'm going to take a stab at adding headings, general copy-editing, and some neutralization (I'll do that part as the last edits), if anyone disagrees, revert it, then post discussion. Themissinglint 01:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Wikified 

message: Who added that bit about mediocre singers sounding better? I'm reverting to the original. Nick L. 04:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediocrity

message: It basically needs to be redone from scratch by someone knowledgeable about the subject. --FuriousFreddy 15:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs revision, copyediting, and fact check. 

message: I changed the wording of the first line from "Pop music is a subgenre of popular music" to "Pop music is a common part of popular music". One can't really consider popular music a genre, it's just whatever kind of music is popular at the time. I feel this wording is more accurate. Aleron235 01:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to see present-day pop not as a genre.  Rock is rock and rock is not pop, a popular song in rock isn't categorized as pop (the argument goes with many other genres). Mandel 00:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  why not just simply explain that "pop music" can be used to describe both a 'meta' genre (when themes are taken from other genres and dumbed down) and as an actual [although constantly evolving] genre? --MilkMiruku 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre?

message: Different styles of music are going to be called "Pop" in the future, just as there have been varying styles in the past.  The article needs to survive next year.--66.25.132.45 01:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop now, pop then, pop yet to come 

message: I suggest we try to find a basis for a definition - some keynotes to the concept of POP MUSIC
Here are some suggestions - 
;The Historic aspect: The term pop music came into use in the late fifties / early sixties when rock´n roll in Europe (first of all Britain) developed into new forms - skiffle bands and beat bands - moving away from Blues and R&B in terms of melodic tonality, harmony, instrumentation, text content, public image a.s.o.  I suggest that the music of Cliff Richard and The Shadows would be a good example of PM and that The Beatles became a developer of PM taking it to heights of quality and fame that is hard to find in other groups or persons later (Other groups, like The Rolling Stones chose to  continue venturing into the blues / rock´n roll heritage - with some exceptions - their music consequently being labeled as rock - also a new term a the time. Then other forms of rock developed from there....) PM filled a void that arose with the new demographic segment  - the youth - new type of generation consciousness that developed due to socio-economic conditions in post-WWII in the West
; The Commercial aspect: PM arose from the fact that investors of capital discovered the musical field as a good opportunity for secure investment. This fact giving the basis for one of the key features of pop music - the invariable demand that the product be a commodity easily marketable - able to reach a mass distribution level enabling the capital to accumulate profits. 
; The Heteronomy aspect: This vector is more obvious in PM than in any other musical industry. As a result of the industrial predominance over art, musically artistic requirements in PM cannot be met unless it is probable that it will produce according to the basic commercial demands: Music and text might be changed or rejected, or be subjected to other features of the product like appearance, attitude a.s.o.
;The Style aspect: Pop music is characterized by musical and other features that are likely to be at the taste of a majority of the market segment i.e. a major group of the population with spending power (=youth). Features that might provoke the general audience are avoided whereas features that are likely to please are emphasized.
#Musical features 
##Melody - perceptive lines, often using a hook to activate the listeners desire to sing along.
##Harmony - triads and dominant sevenths - almost never ninths... T,S, and D in major and minor. Harmonic deviation very rare.
##Rhythm - straight forward - 4/4 predominant. Use of backbeat and syncopation - but on a moderate scale. Recent years also latin and African influences, often by artists originng from the same areas.
#Lyrics features
##Stanzas built by couplets with tail rhyme
##Commonplace content around themes like desire, love, sensuality (explicit sexuality rare)
## Content nonprovocative, everyday life philosophy
#Formal features
##Verse, refrain (chorus), bridge more seldom
##Often symmetric whole.
;The Industry aspect: As a result of the demand to create a nonprovocative / tasteful mass product, artists and groups often come into being through prefabrication: Almost all aspects of the artist is developed by professionals in their respestive fields, to form a whole. Boy bands and girl groups are put together through audition, head hunting a.s.o. (Image building is not exclusively reserved for PM - however it is often a key issue:)
;The Multitude aspect: PM represents a broad scale of artistic style and quality  - all with the common feature of being liked by many people.
;The Lifestyle aspect: PM often links to life style defining trends in fashion, hair style, habits, slang language, espression of sexuality, technological products a.s.o. - thus being an important consenting force for the  life style mass industry
;The Marketing aspect: PM is as a rule subject to heavy and coordinated marketing through massmedia to ensure sufficient exposure to the right market at the right time
; Other possible aspects:
Impact on society, impact on individuals, use, identification, escapism
--
Right. This all sounds fantastic. Who wrote it? Too bad you didn't sign... Ickydog 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding a principal definition for the concept of POP MUSIC 

message: Parts of this page sound like they have been written by teenage kids with little categorical ability.  I've send messages on talk pages to supposed writers asking them to clarify their entries. Mandel 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I and a number of other Wikipedians have cleaned up the article for neutrality.  Please state which parts of it is still POV.  If not we'll remove the dispute tag. Mandel 05:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop

message: Exactly what, for example, does "The relative ease of the draw generates billions and billions of dollars into the entertainment industry" mean?  I would happily recast this to be grammatically correct and more understandable -- but I haven't a clue what this line is trying to say.
Then there is:
"In modern times (increasingly over the last half-century; most notably since the start of the 2000s), this genre's immense success as a commercial product has, ironically, led to even more commercialization within the music itself, with "artists" being drawn in by companies for their appearance, dancing ability and vocal competence; and being provided with an image, choreography, and most importantly complete songs by veterans working for the record company."
Surely all of this has been going on for longer than half a century and surely the modus operandi of the popular music industry has not changed a whit since the beginning of this century, only 5 years ago.  How can any of the above be supported by fact?  And what the devil does "commercialization within the music itself" mean?  Artists have ALWAYS been sought for their appearance and various competencies, so what is significant about that?  And veteran song writers have long, long worked for record companies and provided songs for newcomers.  So this convoluted sentence adds nothing, I believe, to the understanding of the term "pop music."  Are we trying too hard to be profound here?
What if this entire entry were reduced to something like:
"Pop music" is an abbreviation of "popular music" (see elsewhere).  The term is generally used pejoratively, though, to label the more commercial contemporary offerings in popular music.  A pop music tune may be entertaining to listen to and may be performed and produced with technical competence; it may even enjoy a sizable if unsophisticated audience, but it is generally derivative and exhibits little or no creative artistry.  The term brands a piece of music as more a product for sale than an artistic work.
Is it really any more profound than that?  -- Bob Kalsey
:The text "In 2002 t.A.T.u. emerged from Russia to huge success which they still continue to have today as the best selling Russian act of all time." is misleading I believe.  It's saying they still have the same amount of "huge success" thesedays.  I have not seen or heard from the band on TV, radio or web for a few years.  Perhaps they where trying to say they still hold a record as the best sellers?  Not that they're still selling as strong?
:CHSoarer 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still not very informative, nor grammatically correct, nor comprehensible 

message: I would disagree that there's no concern for image in the indie music community. Perhaps not the same concern as with pop music, and perhaps concern for a different and even unique image, but I think it's a little misleading to say that there's no concern about the perceptions of the listener. Jammoe 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indie Music - Image 

message: The name "britpop" is a bit of a misnomer - it does not mean "British pop music" but was instead an alternative rock movement of the mid nineties and therefore does not belong in this article as it stands. --Sachabrunel 16:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Britpop 

message: In this article there's too much conflation of sociological analysis with analysis of the music form itself.  For example, "A music production method completely opposite to that of pop music is that of indie music, where record labels are small, vastly dependent on their few artists, and run by young entrepreneurs rather than corporate veterans."  But music could have totally DIY production and distribution but still be pop muscially.  I think most of the sociological/cultural type analysis would fit better in the popular music article, or some other article.  Or at least in a separate section of this article.
Pop is often discussed as a musical influence or attribute of musicians in all sorts of genres.  But that doesn't have a lot of meaning unless there's a good explanation and discussion of what pop is muscially - independent of whatever cultural or sociological context it might be in.
I think a lot of these articles need to be extensively edited and re-written with clear analysis to identify and differentiate.  For example - the Bubblegum pop article - it needs to explain what (muscially) differentiates bubblegum pop from pop in general.
:First, please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks.
:While I appreciate definitions of genres which distinguish their musical characteristics these are not always what distinguish genres.
:I did, however, make a shot at adding a citation to the defition in the article. What do you think? Hyacinth 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a better musical definition! 

message: I removed the following from the "Characteristics as a subgenre" section as it is not about characteristics of the subgenre but extended description of a recent trend:
:In modern times (increasingly over the last half-century; most notably since the start of the 2000s), this genre's immense success as a commercial product has, ironically, led to even more commercialization within the music itself, with "artists" being drawn in by companies for their appearance, dancing ability and vocal competence; and being provided with an image, choreography, and most importantly complete songs by veterans working for the record company. Some notable examples include Swedish songwriter Max Martin's having crafted most hit songs by pop acts such as Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys, and the pop boy band O-Town having been created as an MTV show. This technique for creating music is massively effective commercially for several apparent reasons. It is adept at targeting specific demographics among young people, since songs are written with that purpose in mind by talented professionals, and images crafted similarly. Also, by sticking to a straightforward formula and format, it is able to produce a consistent, predictable, and marketable product. That ability is only aided, naturally, by the vastly reduced output of the artists preventing companies' dependency on their eccentricities and whims. On the other hand, that reduced role for the artist, especially in the creative area, has always drawn harsh criticism from music fans who are painfully aware of its lack of substance. A music production method completely opposite to that of pop music is that of indie music, where record labels are small, vastly dependent on their few artists, and run by young entrepreneurs rather than corporate veterans. Indie artists, in turn, are perhaps less image driven or focussed on less commercial and mass-market imagery, are not widely marketed (often because of the label's financial constraints), and are almost universally of organic origins rather than having been assembled by their label. Many new artists turn to small indie labels since their reduced marketability makes them an unpopular choice with major labels.
Hyacinth 12:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed 

message: I don't like the use of all the 'Quotes' at the start of this article. It is garbled and doesn't really make any sense.  In my view this bit should be deleted.
Pop music is often defined as music produced commercially, for profit, or "as a matter of enterprise not art" though it may more usefully be defined by market, ideology, production, and aesthetics. Pop "is designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste." It is "not driven by any signifigant ambition except profit and commercial reward...and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative." It is "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers and concert promoters) rather than being made from below...Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged." Lastly, it is "not an art but a craft." (Frith 2001, p.95-96)
''
I have added a bit about my view of Pop music - which is music that is widely popular! Often dance / party songs such as Michael Jackson, with a few examples.  While I like many genres of music, I can see a place for Pop.
Pauline
:How does it not make sense? Hyacinth 09:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for your opinions? Hyacinth 10:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics

message: I removed Template:POV-check as there is no explination given here. Hyacinth 09:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV-check

message: I removed the Template:unsourced from this talk page as there is no indication of what needs to be sourced. Hyacinth 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced

message: :"In the 90s, the ‘pop ballad’ got diluted by business guys hungry to make a quick buck out of such a successful formula. They lined up young attractive boys and girls with X appeal and good voices, and the age of the 'Boy and Girl band’s were born. They sang a similar brand of ballads. In the UK there was Take That, Westlife, Blue, the Spice Girls and more, and it was a highly successful formula. The first successfull creation in the U.S. was New Kids On The Block followed by the Backstreet Boys. But all this ‘diluted’ the pop ballad for the present generation of young people, as they grew up hearing these groups on Tv shows and radio."
That is an issue. [User:151.200.55.187|151.200.55.187]] 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop ballad

message: I removed  since it is not discussed here. Hyacinth 07:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: A request for a peer review of the Sparks article has been made here Wikipedia:Peer review/Sparks (band)/archive2.  Please have a look and maybe help it along--KaptKos 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sparks 

message: Right. Since the article was still heavily POV-oriented, I took out what amounted to a good bit of it. (Someone mentioned that it should be written from scratch anyway) ...there were still loads of sentences that didn't mean anything, or said something like "pop music is crap that makes a lot of money" (paraphrase).
It needs a better intro still, explaining the difference between Pop music, the subject of this article, and Popular music, which has its own. This would help people who are confused by the scope of this article. Really would be worth it to go into detail about the controversy over what pop music "is" and has been...
A note I'd like to work in somewhere is that the AMG Guide doesn't even have a genre called "Pop". You can only look at sub-genres, which includes Rock. Since they're pretty influential it might be good to incorporate this? Ickydog 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article now more about music. Still needs work. 

message: Hey, this article was starting to look good. Why'd it get reverted with no discussion? Hyacinth-- can you help? :)
Ickydog 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Could you point me to a version that was looking good? The only recent reverts I see go back one version to remove vandalism. Hyacinth 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with the last reversion? 

message: This doesn't seem to be very accurate. Jesse McCartney has had one hit single as a solo artist; I'm not an expert, but I know this means he probably shouldn't be discussed in an encyclopedia article on pop music. Same with Son of Dork: if any British pop rock should be mentioned it should be Busted or McFly or something, because they're more notable. Extraordinary Machine 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "1990s and 21st Century" section 

message: :"Style origins: A variety of influences, especially Rock and Roll, Satanism and Rhythm and Blues"
What does the religion satanism have to do with pop music? Arual 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanism 

message: I think this could use a bit MORE sociological/cultural studies analysis. 
Pop music as a genre throughout the years has had a lot of cultural connotations that (I agree) should not be re-affirmed by a wikipedia entry, but should be described as commonly associated with it, and beyond that the associations should be examined explicitly for their cultural significance. 
It's useful and true to note that things called "pop music" often are implied to be low-quality. However, the significance of low quality is also linked with cultural assumptions about what quality music is, who makes it, and what its effects are. There are racial, class, and sexual undertones to this.
Consequently it would be useful to add some discussion of how pop music often references underclasses or sexuality, while reinterpreting them in order to make them more acceptable to mainstream culture. 
Djripley 07:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking in cultural analysis 

message: Nirvana or any grunge does not belong in this article. Grunge and Alternative Rock were based off of punk rock and heavy metal mainly and if there even is a pop influence it is very minor. Pop music is different from music that sells a lot.--67.190.8.155 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grunge and Pop 

message: How exactly do you decide what is Pop and what is not? Surely Pop means popular and is therefore only relative and Pop music is just the artists or genres which are popular at the time. So what "element" is missing from the hip-hop artists (Eminem, Beyoncé etc.) that are mentioned in this article? This should be explained further. Thesean43 18:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Genres 

message: The terminology dates back to Sinatra and other early crooners, but started to lag in the rock era, when Garland and Streisand were considered pop (but were did not represent youth culture the way Sinatra had).  For a time in the early 70's "Bubblegum" was used but had too many connotations (and even became a marketing ploy which further reduced it's connotations).  A good study of this terminology has got to start by tracing the etymology of the word (and particularly its changing usage).  Also I think it would most beneficial if care were taken to separate pop music and pop culture (which is perhaps more closely tied to pop art and its implications). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.207 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pop Vocal Tradition 

message: Another thing sadly missing here is the fact that anything can become 'pop music' by sheer virtue of getting top 40 radio play. If it's given rotation in these key markets (or otherwise come to the attention of the intended demographic and is received favorably) it's Pop, that's it.  Too much emphasis is placed on the attempts of Corporations to design pop.  By giving them that much attention you are in effect validating them in the process when in fact they really do NOT own it, the consumer of the music owns it by virtue of having accepted it. No matter how much media companies try to contrive a culture for us, we have one of our own to answer for, that is the one that should be focused on, else we risk giving pop music a worse name than its already got (and incorrectly so in my view). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.207 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 40 

message: Its rediculous to have the entire first page of an article be covered in tags. As there are a number of concerns, I moved the specific issues to this page, and left the cleanup tag, which will of course lead to the talk page, where people can see the specific issues raised.
-Gsnixon 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: Can someone with expert knowledge address funk's influence on pop? For instance, some info on direct influences, indirect influences through disco, hip hop, and soul, and  mainstream funk artists (Prince, Rick James, etc). --Muchness 08:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funk's influence

message: The opening of the intro, even though sourced, seems to me incorrect:
:Pop music is a genre of popular music distinguished from classical or art music and from folk music.
This is a definition of popular music, not pop music. Pop music is much narrower than just 'music that isn't classical or folk'. For example, jazz may be popular music but is not pop music. The remainder of the intro seems correct. I suggest modifying this initial sentence, maybe to read simply:
:Pop music is a genre of popular music.
I suggest later in the intro a clear distinction is drawn between pop and popular music.
Ben Finn 12:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the distinction?  I know there is one: popular music can be considered anything that reaches a wide audience (read strongly : popular), while 'pop music' has a contextually based difference from other genres (read style, form, tempo, rhythmic features, beats-per-min, etc.) but it seems everyone wants to write an article about popular music.  To continue the rant, Wikipedia articles for genres are severely lacking in this concrete part of genre classification.  If anywhere, this article should make this distinction.  I would also argue that pop music is not a genre of popular music, rather popular music is a classification of music and not a genre in itself.  Thanks for reading. 
Bryon fryer 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition in intro

message: Much of the early part of the History of pop music section appears to be about popular music, not pop music. Surely pop music as a musical genre didn't exist much before the 1960s. Relatedly, when did the term 'pop music' first come into use? Ben Finn 12:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of pop music

message: there's a bunch of stuff about iranian and turkish pop. does that need to be there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueLineSwinger (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it just western pop? 

message: I found :Image:ABBA-DefCollection.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the  tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as  or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unspecified source for [[:Image:ABBA-DefCollection.jpg]]

message: :Image:ABBA-DefCollection.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.
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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ABBA-DefCollection.jpg

message: Removed comment referring to the Monkees as the most "infamous" example of boy bands in the 1960s, as it showed bias.
Beggarsbanquet 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the template at the bottom of the article, why does J-pop have to come before K-Pop? Amphitere 03:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkees 

message: What does this mean? "the Swedish superstar Carola Häggkvist continued her rule of European charts." (2000s). I thought she was just popular in Sweden and Norway. J 1982 23:38, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
:Removed. (82.130.46.195 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carola Häggkvist

message: I'm wondering if the article should make mention of how the word "pop" is sometimes used as a qualifying adjective for more specialized genres, e.g. pop punk, pop metal, pop rap, techno-pop, etc. Music that gets classified in these sub-categories is rarely simply called "pop." Rather, the implication is that it's poppy in relative comparison to the straight genre. For example, Poison has often been called pop metal, but you probably wouldn't call them pop singers. marbeh raglaim 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop as qualifier to other genres 

message: Those are listed as subgenres and fusion genres respectively? There isn't an article for either, but what are they? MalwareSmarts 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck are "dirty pop" and "death pop"? 

message: What Happened at the 90's. I remember a big article their that in which artists such as TLC mariah carey etc. were discussed. I think that the 90s section has shrinked alot. i mean its one of the most important decades in music history since it was a transitional period for all genres. a lot of music changes took place then!!! why has this article shrinked so much. somebody must make it as it was before!!!!! 
ps. its also very messy... do something about this also! --Mysterious Spy 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  90's! What happened to them???!!? 

message: This article is not only unreferenced, I don't think it's even accurate. Gwen Gale 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not too helpful