Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain

message: What the hell is an 'odds and sods' collection?  To colloquial brit for use in Wikipedia.  Somebody please change it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.166.7 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Odds and sods

message: the above track was available as an extra track on the 'Never Understand' 12", not the 'Just Honey' single as described in the main text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownkev (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Suck

message: I have noticed that the "Shoegazing" genre text has been added and removed a few times on this page.  Can we agree something like "...some people say that JAMC were an influential Shoegazing band, while others dispute that".  Then we can all just enjoy the music and get on with life.
:Sir or Madam, the Mary Chain were an influential band, however, they are credited with being the first such band out there to play melancholy songs whil staring down (or facing backward), and giving a rather listless live performance. Thus, they are not a shoegazing band, all of the bands that followed them in this mold - are. - Neilm 08:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the Mary Chain preceeded the genre.  They are its main inspirations, but they aren't of the genre.  The genre keeps getting added by the same anonymous user who keeps editing the Neutral Milk Hotel page with a nonexistent genre.  WesleyDodds 02:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The JAMC were an influence on some shoegazing bands (hard to spot much of an influence on Slowdive, Chapterhouse, Lush, Moose, etc., to be honest), but that's as far as it goes. The allmusic biography of JAMC doesn't use the word shoegazing (or any of its derivatives) once. The allmusic entry for "Shoegaze" says that they were an influence on Shoegazing. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You mean the sentence "Following up on the promise of the earliest singles, the Jesus and Mary Chain with Psychocandy arguably created a movement without meaning to, one that itself caused echoes in everything from bliss-out shoegaze to snotty Britpop and back again."? This is saying that Psychocandy created a movement and that movement "caused echoes" in shoegaze. How does that statement go beyond saying that the JAMC were an influence on shoegazing?--Michig (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shoegazing

message: I have a vague memory of one of the Reid brothers confirming that Some Candy Talking WAS a song about drugs. They denied it at the time and there was a DJ that defended them at the time, but I think on an interview recorded on a picture disc I have they apologise for tricking everyone. I'll have to dig out the Picture Disc and find someone with a record player now!!
It was John Peel who claimed that he was asked by the then controller of BBC Radio 1 if the song                was about heroin and said it wasn't (despite knowing that it was).   
This raises an issue about the denial quote in this section where it is claimed that Some Candy Talking was banned from "All major radio stations in the UK".  At the time ONLY Radio 1 was likely ever to play the JAMC - and they most certainly did play this song, frequently, on the John Peel show.'
But how to prove it?
Bodmass 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Candy Talking - Song about drugs?

message: The link to the William Reid myspace site is a different person in the United States.
:i'm sure lots of people change being so far from home  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: William Reid myspace link

message: I am unable to be sure who the original members of the band were, how many they were, and what instruments they playe. Even sifting through the opening section leaves me with some uncertainty, although para 2 tells me the original drummer. I know this is a voluntary project, and I'm grateful for there being any info at at all. Nonetheless, after reading the first paragraph I'm unable to answer basic questions like this.
The opening says: "The Jesus and Mary Chain originally revolved around the songwriting partnership of its two main members, plus third founding member, bass player Douglas Hart. In the early days, Reid's guitar would be left out of tune, while Hart's bass guitar only had two strings"
Who were those two main members? What did they play? One Reid (which one?) plays guitar ... does the other play guitar too? Two main members plus third found member - this implies to me that it was a 3 piece band. Was it? Was the original drummer mentioned in para 2 the other "main member"?
I'm sorry, but I'm annoyed by articles like this, which seem to assume some starting knowledge on the part of readers and don't specify exact information.
Mister Greywolf (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede states that the 2 main members are Jim and William Reid. The next paragraph adds that Douglas Hart was the third founding member. Seems pretty clear so far. I've edited the section to clarify who played what. Feel free to point out anything else that isn't clear, but please, don't get annoyed.--Michig (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who were the original members and what did they play? 

message: I added a section detailing the band members over the years. This was removed by User:Indopug with an edit summary which simply read "unnecessary". I disagree, and feel that this is useful information that should be detailed in the article rather than just having a simplistic list in the infobox, particularly given the apparent confusion in various sources regarding who was in the band at what point. What do others think?--Michig (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Band members sections give useful information such as the instrument(s) played and the time the person was in the band. FA-class articles like Nirvana (band) also have them. --JD554 (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band members 

message: This didnt exist back then. It was either Unemployment Benefit, or if you hadnt paid enough tax, Income support.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.182.177 (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It originally said they were on the dole but it was changed to Jobseekers allowance to avoid a redirect. Maybe it should say that they were on Unemployment benefit, but the source for this just says that they were on the dole.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically they would have been on Unemployment Benefit and Supplementary Benefit (later renamed Income Support). After a certain amount of time (13 weeks? I can't remember) the Unemployment Benefit would have been stopped and they would have only received Supplementary Benefit. They would have both been known colloquially as the Dole. Anyway, enough of the history lesson, I would simply pipe link Dole to Jobseaker's Allowance. --JD554 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jobseekers allowance

message: I think the section about the song "Jesus Fuck"/"Jesus Suck" is not right.  There is a citation to a book, but I believe the liner notes to The Power of Negative Thinking tell a different story.  I believe it goes like this: they had a song called "Jesus Fuck," but they were warned that it wouldn't be printed by the record pressing plant.  So before they sent it in, they renamed it "Jesus Suck."  That still was too controversial, and the single was refused at the pressing plant.  So finally it was retitled "Suck."  The article makes it sound like we're talking about different songs here, when really it was just one song, I believe.  Can anybody confirm or deny?  I will be re-reading those liner notes to see if that's where I found this info.  Leamanc (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Jim Reid's words from 1986: "It was actually called "Jesus Fuck", but we were told we couldn't release it called that, so we called it "Jesus Suck" and they didn't release it anyway...I'd still like that record to come out, but the truth of the matter is it's not very good." Since "Suck" was released in February 1985 on the "Never Understand" single (after the record comapny refused to include "Jesus Fuck"), and since the controversy over "Jesus Suck/Fuck" was later in 1985, and since Jim said in 1986 that it was never released, I don't see how "Suck" could be the same song.--Michig (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Jesus Suck"

message: I have some doubts that the MySpace linked in the external links () is genuinely the offical JAMC MySpace, despite claims there. The "Band website" linked there is a fansite, so I suspect this MySpace is related to that site. There's nothing useful on the MySpace page at all, so I would suggest that we remove the link.--Michig (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace 

message: "The success of "Upside Down" led to interest from WEA-subsidiary Blanco y Negro Records which signed the group in early 1985."
I believe (at least according to My Magpie Eyes Are Hungry For The Prize) that ByN was pretty much founded in order to release J&MC. The label was founded and run by Geoff Travis, Alan McGee, and Mike Alway. So to say that the record attracted the attention of people who were already releasing their records under a different imprint is silly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.107.13.185 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanco y Negro were releasing records as far back as April 1984 (Everything But the Girl's "Each and every One"), which is before the JAMC were signed to Creation Records (most likely before McGee had even heard of the JAMC) - I don't believe McGee was one of the label's founders.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanco y Negro 

message: East Kilbride isn't in Glasgow! It's NEAR Glasgow, not in it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.235.42 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erm... 

message: As an attendee of this now-infamous concert, I would say that the main article's description of Jim Reid's violent outbursts is rather understated. I have read one published account of those events but I do not recall with certainty the details that it contained and therefore I cannot verify what I claim to have witnessed that night. Furthermore, the main article may not benefit significantly from a more graphic report of the violence. However, if it takes the trouble to mention certain specifics such as the use of microphone and mic stand as weapons I wonder if it might just as well go further. Frozenwasteland24 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Concert - November 1987 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Jesus and Mary Chain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821092528/http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/42857806 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/42857806
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Albrecht Conz why would this not be important? It's their first album in 19 years and it's likely that anyone who looks at this page will be interested in a brand new album coming out.--MASHAUNIX 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -  Metalello talk 23:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What? What does this have to do with marketing? Why is it beneficial to leave the album out of the lead, short as it is? We might very well include mention of every single studio album they've released and the lead still wouldn't be too long! I don't understand the logic here whatsoever.--MASHAUNIX 09:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -  Metalello talk 11:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: If you're going to mention the new album, please mention every other album as well. Thanks in advance. -  Metalello talk 04:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  An encyclopedia is not a news site. Other albums (and other facts) about the JMC are more notable, be it because of reviews, sales, their proven impact etc. (all of which, as of now, is unknown about the new album). To dump stuff in the lede just because it's new distorts the article (nevermind that the contributors in question made no effort to update the relevant sections further down). Albrecht Conz (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Albrecht Conz I defer to your edit. -  Metalello talk 06:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

text: In what way does it "distort" the article? The lead should mention at least in passing every major work that they've done, regardless of whether it was succesful or not. What is the point of mentioning all albums except this new one? You might as well argue that the lead shouldn't even mention that they reformed, because it hasn't been proven that they have been relevant since then. This is an article about the band, not their music scene.--MASHAUNIX 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The information that they reformed belongs in the lead - as does the information whether a person is living or dead. This is a crucial aspect of the subject. The same is not true about current events such as a new album. This belongs in the article (where it is mentioned), not in the lead. You may want to consult this guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section which states: "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." Albrecht Conz (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether you're serious about this or just have some personal bias about this album, but I don't want to spend any more time here. Let me just say that what I am suggesting is not a violation of the guideline, as mentioning the work is not giving it undue weight, but giving it at least some weight. Damage and Joy may not be as relevant to their career as their first three albums, but it is hardly completely irrelevant. I don't see how the lead, which is far shorter than adequate, is being improved by mentioning all of the band's albums except the most recent one. That is what distorts it, because anyone who reads it won't be informed of the full scope of the band's work. If you believe this is better, have it your way.--MASHAUNIX 22:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Damage and Joy in lead