Talk:Fanny (band)

Original lineup

If there's some evidence to indicate that Nickey Barclay is not an original member and that there was someone else there before her, some evidence linked here would be good. Otherwise I'd be inclined to leave her in since she's mentioned in just about everything I've seen via good old Google. --BenM 14:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge, but to expand the June Millington article. DOOMSDAYER520

---

I propose that June Millington be merged into Fanny (band). Due to some recent expansion of the Fanny article, June's article contains mostly overlapping information, and some of June's article is also about her sister Jean, whose career is also covered in the Fanny article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• No merge, stay separate. June Millington kept growing in notability after Fanny. In 1986, she founded the Institute for the Musical Arts, an organization that educates and empowers female musicians. She is known as a record producer and label owner. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but in that case June's article needs serious expansion to focus on those things and not simply repeat material about Fanny. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs much work. Here are some sources:

• Notable Moments of Women in Music (2008): "the Institute for the Musical Arts, an organization that educates and empowers female musicians."
• One-page article devoted to Millington, written by Michael Pierce in Guitar Player magazine, also published in book form: The Guitar Player Book: 40 Years of Interviews, Gear, and Lessons from the World's Most Celebrated Guitar Magazine.
• Queer Noises: Male and Female Homosexuality in Twentieth Century Music: "Millington ...later became a respected producer for Cris Williamson, among others..."
• Author Jennifer Baumgardner calls Millington a "women's music heroine".
• Navigating the Music Industry: Current Issues & Business Models. The authors list Millington as important to women's music through her label Fabulous Records.
• Reebee Garofalo, Rockin' out: popular music in the USA (2008), pp. 253-254. Garofalo describes Millington's career going from Fanny to women's music, record producer, and session player for Olivia Records.
• She's a Rebel: The History of Women in Rock & Roll, pp. 115-116: Description of how Millington grew into women's music starting in 1975.
• Girls Rock!: Fifty Years of Women Making Music. The authors describe how Millington and nine other artists should have been listed in Rolling Stone, the musical encyclopedia
• "Olivia Records: Women Making Music Together" article in Yoga Journal, describing Millington's "spiritual journey" that is expressed on her Olivia Records album Heartsong.
• Interview with Millington in Backstage pass: interviews with women in music. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't think of a better argument than that, so sometime soon I will get to work on expanding the June Millington article, maybe with some help... --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weaselly lead

The lead is still a bit weaselly. Who decided which bands were "notable"? In what way "notable"? Any band can be amongst the first if there's no clear explanation of which other bands you are excluding. Best to stick to hard facts that demonstrate they were ahead of their time, than undefined vagueness that leaves the reader guessing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Notable" has a precise definition at Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability. According to the Wikipedia community, if something is notable it merits an article; or if it merited an article then you can assume it's notable unless someone successfully argues otherwise. Fanny has a Wikipedia article so they're a "notable" band, and the evidence of notability is what makes up the whole rest of the article after the lead. If the lead leaves some readers guessing, it might encourage others to keep reading the rest of the article to find out why. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 The article completely misleads about the choice of the name "Fanny".   It was common knowledge at the time what "getting some Fanny" meant.  It was the band's way of saying they knew what they needed to do to succeed, and they were willing to do it.  More than a few women in show business owe their success to the same thing.2601:246:CE00:BC80:2523:2470:710C:BBDD (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that the only actual source cited contradicts that. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Also totally sexist, implying that all women got ahead by handing out sexual favors, with no reliable confirmation that any women did so, much less the band Fanny. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fanny (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515101605/http://www.berklee.edu/news/2007/01/0125.html to http://www.berklee.edu/news/2007/01/0125.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fanny (band). 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/20120219233947/http://bramfoto.com/bostonglobe/fanny.html to http://bramfoto.com/bostonglobe/fanny.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515101605/http://www.berklee.edu/news/2007/01/0125.html to http://www.berklee.edu/news/2007/01/0125.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fanny (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 78.26 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research: The sentence "During tours, female fans would ask the group how to form a band and what skills were required" seems to come from [1] "All over the country Fanny has been approached by young girls asking about the machinations of forming a rock band." Is there an additional source to support the statement? In particular the last part "what skills were required" seems a bit of a stretch from that one sentence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC) This has been addressed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: - Note: Matches come from quotation, and on phrase ("first all-female band to sign with a major label") which would be difficult to state otherwise in a non-awkward manner. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Note: Catalog numbers (US issues, since primary activity was there) and chart positions would be nice in the "Discography" section, and also a complete listing of singles would be nice. That's just a wishlist from a record nerd, and really shouldn't be a factor in GA status. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Article tone is faultlessly neutral. However, only highly positive reviews of their music is included. Were there any contemporary reviews of their albums or concerts that were mixed or negative? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC) This is also addressed. Thank you for the additional content. Although this article could be improved with more weight towards criticism (good/bad/neutral) concurrent with the band's active years, this is a good article review, not a perfect article review. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: I wonder if Template:PD-US-no notice applies to that 1970 photo. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking comments in turn (both on this page and found elsewhere)

• I have added some less positive views of the group; they weren't as well-received in the US compared to the UK and Europe and contemporary record companies treated them as a gimmick. That's pretty much it, though - more recent coverage of the group is pretty much uniformly positive.
• I've trimmed out "what skills were required" (per comment in 2C). The Billboard interview was a good find, but if there are any similar interviews from that period, they'll be hard to discover.
• I've added chart positions for the two albums that were hits, and ensure each entry is backed up with an inline citation. I haven't included the labels or catalog numbers as this doesn't appear to be consistent with other band GAs; for example, Van der Graaf Generator just lists title and year in brackets.
• I don't have any sources explaining why Brie Brandt rejoined the group. The band's official website, which is as pretty much close to the comprehensive truth as one could expect to get, simply says "Alice was replaced on drums by former Svelte Brie Brandt". I can only speculate she was simply socially compatible and available to work with the remaining members.

I rather figured as much. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Vanamonde is correct that this source is not reliable and should not be used. I think this is simply a matter of picking the wrong URL - the actual Boston Globe source is used elsewhere.

I'm a bit chagrined I missed that, as I agree regarding the quality of the source. The claim was directly cited by another source I had previously read, so I didn't examine as I should have. Bad source was replaced by said source, so this is all good now. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Doomsdayer should be able to give you more information about the photo - it hasn't been challenged in the five years it's been there so I assume silence = consensus. I have tried to find a PD-US photograph in the Billboard archives (which were incredibly fruitful when expanding The Carpenters) but didn't uncover anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of my work on the Fanny article was done in around 2013-14 and before I got to it, the infobox had an awful out-of-focus stage shot from a recent performance by the Millington sisters, which technically was not a FANNY photo. I could not find anything free to use at the time, so I used the cover of the Fanny Hill album, which offers a great group portrait and was eligible under the Fair Use rules. But Ritchie has created a brand new article for Fanny Hill (album), which is now the most logical place for that image. The Non-Free experts at WP may conclude that the album cover image should only be used now for the album article and not for the band article. If a copyright-compliant band photo from 1970-74 cannot be found through the usual channels, it might be viable to ask the folks at the Fanny website for a contribution. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The relevant policy says "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." The "classic line up" are extremely unlikely to ever reunite, so future opportunities to take a free photo can be reasonably expected to not exist. However, a key point about Fanny is they didn't rely at all on their visual appearance and achieved notability purely on ability and merit, and a typical reader is going to "get" what a photo of June Millington holding a guitar is about, regardless of whether it was taken in 1969, 1979, 1989 or 2019. It's all a bit of a grey area; my understanding of criteria 6a is that you should supply a FUR and it should survive cross-examination, which it has done. A CC-BY-SA photo released from the band's archives would be great; this photo in particular would be a better image than what we have now, if the photographer, Linda Wolf (who is still around) was prepared to release a free version of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to fail based on this. Many pre-1977 US albums don't have copyright notices regarding the cover art, which is why I suggest it might be checked. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

According to all the above, I am deeming this a "good article". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, 78.26. Hope you enjoyed the GA reviewing experience, it's not too bad when you get used to it, and stick to topics you are (or can get) interested in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, FYI. A final minor suggestion; it might be worth duplicating the references about the lineup in the lineup section. The information is already sourced in the body, so this isn't a GA pass criterion, but it could make it easier for future readers. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Comment

78.26 - As someone who has contributed a significant percentage of this article's text in past years, I would like to thank the GA reviewers for their fine work, plus Ritchie333 for the recent improvements. Regarding the two question marks in the analysis above, I feel that the targeted statement at #2-C is a nice embellishment for the article but it could be removed with no damage. At #4, Fanny is a band that gained much of their appreciation long after they broke up, and given the nature of rock history, it is now easy to find online reviews from recent years and those are almost uniformly positive. If they received any critical reviews when they were really together (1970-74) those will be much more difficult to find in old print magazines and newspapers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the original sources, I agree it could be difficult. I am merely asking the question in the interest of article improvement, not threatening a "fail" if more measured critical assessments aren't found. This was certainly a pleasure to review. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Musical criticism

Aside from success as determined by record sales, commercial potential and public awareness of the band there is little in this Wikipedia page about the music itself. Specifically music criticism. Also - Was this band assembled as a novelty act with a sexually suggestive name? Was the band itself intended to promote the sex of beautiful young women i.e the Millington's are exotic and beautiful physically? Would the music business package Fanny and promote the feminist or general public view that women were under represented in rock and roll because of male oppression?

What is musical criticism? Are the following opinions "an intellectual activity of formulating judgements on the value and degree of excellence of individual works of music, or whole groups or genres"?:

Some of the band's output was poorly produced and engineered, poorly written and performed by musicians who ultimately were no better or worse than any other average musician. Alternatively Fanny's music is mostly forgettable, a surprisingly worse copy of contemporary formulaic rock music that itself was always in danger of being called "shit or worse". (Fortunately this is the Talk page.)

I note that there is discussion above (Talk page) about public perception of Fanny which the author appears to confuse with criticism but this favorability simply translates to the public's romanticism about an early all female rock band. I suspect that this page is void of musical criticism because Fanny was a business, designed to sell a product and only incidentally were a rock band. I suggest that this page exists because of that business' popularity, attitudes about human sexuality, nostalgia, sentimentality, romanticism and idolization - much less so because of the music. Part of the public sees beautiful young women playing in a rock band and this is mostly sexual imagery regardless of the music the same as it was for Elvis. To even suggest this risks accusations of bigotry, sexism and misogyny.

In conclusion the Fanny entry is void of musical criticism and could be enriched with musical criticism and an analysis of the music business in the 1970s. This entry shouldn't be misconstrued as a put down or an effort to denigrate the musicians in the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.207.104 (talk • contribs)

That would be original research and your essay can be published somewhere else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Between us, both myself and Doomsdayer have cited as many sources as we can find, which is why this is now a good article; one of the criteria of which is "broad in coverage". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The comment about the band being a "business first" speaks to a deep ignorance of both June Millington and Nickey Barclay's commitment to their songs and their art, and makes me immediately discard your comment in its entirety for improvement to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.27.4 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Brie leaving the Svelts

The opening para of the 'Career' section says "Brandt left to get married and was later replaced by Alice de Buhr." That's not what either of the cited sources says though. The Guardian article says "Drummer Howard left after she married a man who told her to quit the band". The official Fanny site says "Their first drummer was friend Brie Berry, who dropped out of the band to have a baby." I suggest going with what Fanny Rocks says unless anyone has another source. paxman (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

To avoid saying anything that might not be true or accurate, I would go with "Brandt quit the group and was replaced by Alice de Buhr". There's no real need to mention anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

direct link?

in the moment there is a direct link to a photo of a music venue and the billboard on its roof, where a photo of the band('s backs) is pictured. I was happy to have had the opportunity to see this picture, but still am unsure about a direct link in/ under a wikipedia text section (instead of under the article near or in the references part), but don't know what to do about it (and if it was just a format(t?)ing error or straight boldness on the side of the person who put that link there in this way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3035:601:EB83:7341:4660:A110:EDDC (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

tiny detail re the bass

in the documentary mentioned, jean herself describes it as a 1962 precision, not a '63. she uses several other basses during the doc, but this (sunburst) instrument is the one specifically mentioned as having been the main bass during the band's career. duncanrmi (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)