Talk:The Smiths/Archive 1

Archive 1

2004

Can we move the Smiths Station reference somewhere else in the article? It seems a bit obscure to put at the very top, even in tiny font. Acegikmo1 18:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I moved it back, Ace. Its just the standard way we do disambiguation. -SV 02:04, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that anyone would come to this page looking for Smiths Station, Alabama. Wikipedia:Disambiguation states, "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion. Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", would they expect to view any of the articles listed on the disambiguation page?" I can't imagine anyone typing in "The Smiths" looking for "Smiths Station, Alabama".

However, the redirect from "Smiths" to "The Smiths" and that fact that "Smiths Station" is also know as "Smiths" create a problem. Perhaps the proper solution would be to include a link to "Smiths (disambiguation)" at the top, though that doesn't seem quite right either.

Acegikmo1 02:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That sounds right, actually. -SV

I'd like to humbly suggest excising or re-wording the "workmanlike rather than inspired" reference to Strangeways. The sentiment is open to debate, and the sentence it's in loses nothing with the phrase removed. ffirehorse 23:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a complainer. If the sentiment is important to the entry, please revert. ffirehorse 18:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Pretty Girls Make Graves" was from a line in Kerouac's Dharma Bums not a Hubert Selby Jr..

"Pretty Girls Make Graves" was from a line in Kerouac's Dharma Bums not Hubert Selby Jr..

2005

If I could casually mention: the vague republicanism mentioned in regard to Meat is Murder's Nowhere Fast is hardly that - "the line the poor and the needy are helpless and greedy" is attributed to the Queen seeing as how that quip is followed with "on her terms." Thus he explains just why he'd like to drop his trousers to her. Let me know if there's some other reason... Random Smiths Fan 10/19/05

Bigger group image?

Does anyone happen to have one that isn't copyright restricted? The current one is fine except for that it's a little small, and the copyright status is probably a bit of a grey area. --Hn 05:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The new pic "almost" makes them look like a boyband. --Madchester July 8, 2005 06:12 (UTC)

"Most influential rock band after the Beatles"

More so than the Sex Pistols? Or Led Zeppelin? (I know most Smiths fans, including myself, aren't into heavy metal, but LZ and Black Sabbath have been hugely influential on a very large number of rock bands). I've just removed a few of the more over-the-top claims, and I think this also needs to be toned down. The Smiths attract a certain kind of over-dedicated fan, and this article should be encyclopaedic, not a gushing fansite. "Pioneers of indie music" is another dodgy phrase - there's a reasonable case for Buzzcocks having been pioneers five years before the Smiths started, but the Smiths signed to a label which had been putting out indie music for years already. If you're defining "indie" stylistically that's also debatable. --  ajn (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

NME named the Smiths the most influencal band a few years ago.

--Thischarmingboy 19:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I've changed the introduction.

1. "Pioneers of indie music" is just inaccurate - it's more accurate to note that they were signed to an independent label (in the 1980s, the qualification for being an "indie" band), and to note that they had a huge influence on a lot of what "indie rock" has since come to mean (e.g. Radiohead, Suede etc - never "indie" in the 1980s sense). I'd prefer to cut down the list of bands to half a dozen, too - are the Killers (one album), Libertines, Placebo and Doves really worth mentioning alongside Blur and Radiohead? Were Nirvana significantly influenced by the Smiths?
2. Removed the Beatles claim - the list of bands undeniably influenced by the Smiths should be enough.
3. "Many current indie, rock and pop groups aspire to the musical style of The Smiths, or draw much lyrical influence from Morrissey." - this is already covered by the "influence" sentence.
4. No need to mention a "small revival of interest", is there?

Also, some work needs to be done on the The Smiths, Morrissey and Johnny Marr articles - there's information in all three articles which would be better-placed in others (e.g. M&M's birth dates, which don't need to be here). --  ajn (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of what you say here Andrew. At present the article reads a little too much like a fan website rather than an accurate encyclopedia entry. The use of the word "indie" should be used in relation to the group being signed to an independent record label rather than a style of music (because there is no such style). I also agree that the list of bands influenced by The Smiths is too long and should perhaps be limited to a few significant players, but would suggest that The Libertines are probably notable due to their recent impact on British music and the similar 'Englishness' of style to The Smiths. However, Nirvana? Beggars belief to be honest! I think there are strong links with The Killers, but I'm uncertain whether they should be mentioned or not. They are certainly significant players on the current music scene and having only one album released so far should not necessarily be a barrier to their inclusion.

Kurt Cobain acknowledged The Smiths as an influence, I believe. In fact his famous TOTP performance where he sang Smells Like Teen Spirit in a very very low voice was 'inspired' (not sure if that is the best word to use here) by The Smiths and Morrissey (possibly their attitude towards pretending to perform live when really they were miming). SJH

Actually, the performance was more like Kurt MOCKING Morrissey than any type of tribute. The Smiths WERE NOT any significant influence on Nirvana, if at all. No one has yet to produce a single Smiths mention in a Kurt interview EVER, and the Morrissey reference in TOTP is attributed to a very small mention in Kurt's biography. Dave Grohl has gone on record to saying the band "hated the Smiths" which I think should end the debate.

Happy to see the back of the Beatles claim. It was perhaps a little overblown.

I've had a quick look at the Morrissey and Johnny Marr articles and agree that some work needs doing, but I'm uncertain what you mean by the dates of birth not needing to be there. This is a basic convention of an entry for an individual. They do need to be reformatted to fall in line with layout conventions, but they shouldn't be removed. However, if I have misunderstood then please explain. They should not, however be included in the first reference to Morrissey and Johnny Marr on The Smiths page. Valiant Son 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What I meant (and probably wasn't clear about) was that the dates of birth need to be in the articles about the individuals, but not in the article about the band (Rourke and Joyce's dates aren't here). The Morrissey article is a real mess, especially the "miscellaneous" section, but it does seem to have a few things in it which would probably be better here. This article could do with some fleshing out, but it's really not too bad. --  ajn (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand now and agree wholeheartedly. I'm planning on having a crack at doing some work on these, but not sure when exactly. I certainly think the comment about Johnny Marr beginning his career as a footballer needs to be excised. He wasn't a professional footballer. He was a promising, but ultimately unsuccessful, amateur. So are thousands of others. It isn't relevant to his work as an adult. If it needs to remain at all then it should be entirely relocated. Valiant Son 23:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

First "indie" group

The word "indie" was already in use when the Smiths formed, so this is clearly not true. If people are going to insert claims that the Smiths were the first this, or the most important that, they need to provide some sort of reference - this may seem a bit anal, but Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia, and if you think the Smiths were important, sticking to the quality of information expected in an encyclopaedia is important. If they really have been (incorrectly) cited as the first "indie" group, where and by whom? --  ajn (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, good call. --Hn 10:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Text/Graphical Conflict

I'd like to point out that the pink picture of Morrissey next to the passage that says that the Smiths dressed normally onstage amusingly contradicts the text. There's another picture that's in the article for "Shoplifters of the World Unite" that agrees with the text.

--Domukaz

Erm, he's just wearing a shirt. --Hn 04:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it's a rather gaudy shirt for the statement right next to it that says that they dressed in ordinary clothes onstage. Domukaz 02:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a plain pale blue shirt to me. He's wearing a necklace and has what looks like a brooch pinned to it, but it's hardly the sort of thing Boy George or Adam Ant would have worn. --  ajn (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

True, true. I guess the picture is more valuable than the text in providing a complete view of the topic at hand. --Domukaz

I think that the outfit Morrissey is wearing in the picture in question could not be accurately described as ordinary. Ordinary is a difficult (or impossible) word to define, however I don't believe an outfit is ordinary just because two of the most flamboyantly dressed artists of the new romantic movement would not wear it. I think it would improve the article to either change the photograph or alter the text. - JMJ

Because there has been no further discussion about Morrissey's outfit, I have changed the photo as requested by Domukaz - JMJ

Singles gallery?

I'm after opinions as to whether a singles gallery would work on the page. It would be quite a few images (16? 17?) but there are some really, really nice covers there and they do sum up the aesthetic qualities of the band quite nicely. Thoughts? I'm prepared to do the legwork if there's no strong objections and we can always get rid of it if it doesn't work I suppose. --Hn 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors Influence

Having listened to the Editors album, I must say there's an undeniable influence there. I think they belong on the "influenced by" list...any objections??? Chris 1127 10:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's already too many groups listed to be honest. It's appropriate for a page on The Editors, but I don't think it really is for a page on The Smiths. --Hn 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reunion

I am fairly certain that the Smiths did NOT reunite. I believe that was just a rumor. Is there a link to an article proving that they did in fact reunite? --jc2k6

• They have not reunited. Folkor 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WEA Acquisition of Smiths catalogue

I think the Wiki should include the compilations made by WEA; i.e. BEST .. (1), BEST .. (2) and The Very Best of The Smiths.

I too was surprised that these were not included in the discography. Were they released against the wishes of the band members? If so, that in itself would not preclude them surely? Vans74 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and so have added all of the above plus the 1995 compilation Singles. MFlet1 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

EMI

EMI should not be listed under record labels. Although the band signed to EMI in 1986, they split up before releasing anything on that label. In the UK all Smiths records came out on Rough Trade originally and have since been re-issued on Warner Bros. The only exception to this is post-1992 compilations which have always been on Warner Bros. MFlet1 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add any more bands to the "influenced" bit

There's more than enough groups there already. Put it on the band's page, sure, but I think it's safe to say The Smiths' influence is pretty wide-reaching, and a list of every band they've ever influenced would be almost as long as the article itself! If there's a significant reason to add a group, do so but please leave some justification for their addition here. Thanks. --Hn 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've just removed the Primitives and restored the Stone Roses, though - the Primitives were championed by Morrissey but not as obviously influenced by the Smiths as the Stone Roses were (and the Roses were a far bigger band and fellow-Mancunians). --ajn (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Panic! and MCR ought to be there, as of Morrissey's lyrics influence on the emo music culture.LiAm McShAnE 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ffs who removed them i know theyre both crap but dont delete them LiAm McShAnE 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are Gene named? I mean, they are Britpop taglines and harldy worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as The Smiths. I could do with seeing a citation for Doves as the sounds are nowhere near, even though the band may have cited the Smiths as an influence. Coming from Manchester or Salford does not automatically mean a tip of the hat towards the Smiths. FungasUK 060707

Can we just limit the list to bands that have publicly named The Smiths as an influence? With certain bands it's impossible to contain how influential they are. For instance, I think it's fair to say that every single Anglo-American rock band after around 1968 is influenced by The Beatles, whether they like it or not, simply because of their ubiquity and their untold influence on other bands that are also "influential." Since I've seen more than one source claim that The Smiths "invented" indie rock it seems absurd to create an authoritative list of bands influenced by them without limiting it somehow. --Tothebarricades 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LiAm McShAnE's comment simply illustrates my point. "Emo" far predates MCR, who by the way I saw when they were performing for <50 people in tiny halls in NJ, and the extent of "influence" Morrissey exerts on the "emo" genre, which arguably doesn't even exist, is highly questionable. --Tothebarricades 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I reckon someone needs to make a separate page with a list172.201.157.98 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Can we just limit the list to bands that have publicly named The Smiths as an influence" - Even that list would be fucking huge. I'm going to add the Arcade Fire, as they're a band who seem appropriate

Oh yeah in response to Tothebarricades' comment ""Emo" far predates MCR", I hardly think that its a crime not knowing about Fugazi, Embrace (the REAL one) etc, as the emo movement was relatively underground —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.224.70 (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pop

I think its inappropriate to call The Smiths a "rock group". Their music is undeniably "pop" music. This is in no way an insult to the band. I think in today's age of manufactured, bland commercial pop, pop has become a dirty word, and aspiring to make pop music something to be ashamed of. What was so great about the Smiths was their desire to make great, intelligent and meaningful pop music. In the context of the 1980s, they were a pop group making brilliant pop music. 213.121.151.142 19:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In actuality all rock music is pop music. However, "Pop" now has specific connotations. Indie pop is sufficient to describe the Smiths' pop leanings because, well, that's what they were WesleyDodds 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about pop. They were (opinion here:) about as goth as they were pop, which isn't to say they were not either. Indie pop and indie rock are both fine classifications.

goth? um, no. Joeyramoney 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that they should be labeled 'Indie' anything; they were around when Indie meant Independant and hadn't yet been high-jacked by major labels. In my opinion, Post-Punk or Alternative Rock would be a more accurate description.

Is all rock music pop? Are Faust pop? Are Soft Machine pop? It's hard to say with many bands... which is why it remains a matter of debate. Certainly the music of The Smiths has pop hooks, and song structures, etc, so I could see them being placed in the 'pop' category much more easily than I do the two bands I mentioned...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i think by goth you mean emoLiAm McShAnE 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC

I think Liam McShane has no fucking clue what he's talking about, as evidenced above, and both "pop" and "rock" have highly subjective definitions. "Pop" can be the antithesis of both capital-C "Classical" and anything that isn't produced simply to reach a huge audience and make money a la contemporary billboard charts. I must ask you what you base your distinction of rock and pop on, because I can't think of any, considering you still hold the possibility of non-corportate pop. It's guitars bass and drums, it's a few guys from Manchester making what they know how to make on (until the end) Rough Trade Records, so what's your case against their status as a rock band? --Tothebarricades 06:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

maybe i don't know what i'n on about, but at least i don't confuse my fucking argument. what i was saying was that being two very similair (and shit) beings, goth and emo occasionaly get mixed up. Having a huge (and i hope RELUCTANT) influence on emo, i was simply mistaking the mistake on a mistake LiAm McShAnE 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

James Maker

James Maker (who went on to join Raymonde and RPLA) was a fifth "member" of the band. Granted, he lasted two weeks (as I understand things) but I feel he should have a mention. He was a "go-go" dancer and made his first appearence at The Smiths' first gig at the Ritz in Manchester. He was dropped as the rest of band decided this wasn't the image they wanted to portray. tenfourzero 11:34, 03 May 2006 (UTC)

I see Maker has been added to "Members" in the top-of-article infobox (listed as "1982-83", which is pretty good going for a week or two's work).

Also added is Wolstencroft as a 1982 drummer.

I will have to research Wolstencroft's involvement, as I wasn't aware he was ever involved in any meaningful capacity, but surely Maker as a "member" is pretty much overstating things? And - if it transpires he once met Marr and jammed or something trivial like that - the same would apply to Wolstencroft.

If these guys are so "significant" that they don't merit a single verifiable mention in the main article, then why are they listed as members? --DaveG12345 19:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(Update: turns out Wolstencroft was an ex-Freak Party member who drummed on the first Smiths demo, but was gone before their first gig - so he lasted rather less time than, e.g., Dale Hibbert, who at least got a gig. So - as with Maker - was he a Smiths "member"?) --DaveG12345 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratched Maker & Wolstencroft from the article infobox. Unless their influence was such that they merit a non-trivial "they existed" mention in the article, they cannot justify a position as "members" IMO. --DaveG12345 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scott Piering

According to his obituary in The Times, Scott Piering managed The Smiths for 3 albums. If this is true, and as Piering now has an article, you might want to mention it/link to him. --kingboyk 14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncited claim re band name origin

I moved this here from the article page:

This could also be a reference to Dave and Maureen Smith (Maureen was Myra Hindley's sister), who both feature heavily in Emlyn Williams's indepth book about the Moors Murders, "Beyond Belief". It is clear that Morrissey was influenced by this book as evinced by the song "Suffer Little Children", and it is well known that Morrissey was and is fascinated by these tragic and most awful murders.

Unless we can be provided with some strong verifiable citation confirming that, out of the millions of Smiths in the world, this one (the married name of a Moors Murderer's sister) was the one the group had in mind, I think this has to stay out of the main article. "Suffer Little Children" is already mentioned in the article, so really this content is only adding the claim about the band's name, plus somewhat superfluously plugging a book (it seems to me).--DaveG12345 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's often mentioned as a tangential possibility that informed the name choice but it's not primary. --Tothebarricades 06:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't Suffer Little Children be referred to as from their debut rather than as a B-side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.36.61 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre specifications

Indie pop & Indie rock are both subgenres of Alternative, I don't think we also need to specify that The Smiths are an Alternative band. Both of the previously mentioned genres more than imply that. There are other bands of this era that identify with & exemplify the Alternative genre more than The Smiths did, therefore I see no need to point out a broader genre that doesn't really narrow down their music nearly as well as Indie pop & Indie rock, which do a fine job explaining their influence - when Post-punk & Alternative shifted into Indie pop. User: Anthonylombardi

It's there primairly because that's what they are and are described as, they are a seminal force in the genre as a whole, and it's certainly a more familiar term than indie rock or indie pop for those not familiar with the genres. Alternative is a broad genre, sure, but the Smiths were one of the most influential and visible bands of the genre prior to Nirvana. WesleyDodds

Someone above in the "Pop" category also agreed that Indie pop & Indie rock are both fine classifications for The Smiths. Whereas a band like Nirvana were thrown into the Grunge genre (& they were, undeniably, Grunge - whether through association with the mainstream or musically), Alternative is a wider genre to describe them due to many disagreements with their similarities to primary Grunge artists. The Smiths marked a point in Alternative music where Post-punk turned to Indie pop & Indie rock (which is also stated in an article on allmusic.com) - so while, yes they are Alternative, I think it's a rather obvious implication & that Indie pop & Indie rock suit them just fine under the genre category, as these were the genres they really exemplified to a much higher degree. They were listed as Indie pop & Indie rock only for a very long time, & now all the sudden Alternative is thrown in there - & I make a rather solid argument to take it out, & when I do it's considered vandalism. This isn't registering with me. User: Anthonylombardi

That doesn't change the fact that they're an alternative rock band, and it's also notable that they tend to extend past the indie pop and indie rock genres. Also, alternative has been listed in the infobox for a while; the page originally said "rock, pop, alternative, indie" before being changed into its current configuration.

Also, I'm not quite sure, but you seem to be signing in and out of an account. Please only edit under your account if possible, and sign your posts. WesleyDodds 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying that The Smiths are an Alternative band - they obviously are - my only argument is that it may not be a very good idea to list every genre that the band associated themselves with. Let's use Nirvana as an example again - Grunge & Alternative are both subgenres of Hard Rock, so should we add "Hard Rock" under Nirvana's list of genres? That isn't there, even though they are inarguably a Hard Rock band. I distinctively remember either "Indie pop & Indie rock" or just "Indie pop" being the sole genres listed for The Smiths, as I don't recall Alternative being added until recently. I was just suggesting that we only use the two main genres that best represent what the band exemplified & helped to unify during their timespan together.

I don't have a userpage set up, nor do I really know how to set one up, so there's nothing to link to if I were to sign my posts. I signed in a few times by accident but I normally make changes anonymously (which, as I understand, isn't against the rules). I apologize if that's an inconvenience. User: Anthonylombardi

It's required that you sign your posts on talk pages in order to identify posters. WesleyDodds 10:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that that's cleared up . . . The thing is during the 80s indie rock and alternative rock were largely synonymous terms. In particular, the phrase "indie" in the UK during the 80s and even to this day not only refers to indie rock, but alternative rock as a whole--this includes grunge, Madchester, Britpop, etc. And the Smiths were the posterboys for "indie". Over in the States we'd tend to call it "college rock" until "alternative" caught on. Consequently, the Smiths were labeled as college rock. So really, if push came to shove, there's more of a reason to list alternative rock over indie rock in the infobox; much modern usage of the term "indie rock" refers to alternative music that stayed underground after Nirvana broke through.

And the main reason hard rock isn't listed as a genre on the Nirvana page is hard rock is most often used as a vague signifier for rock that "rocks" rather than a specific style. Unless a band can be specifically described as hard rock it usually isn't used. And alternative isn't a subgenre of hard rock. Additionally, Nirvana is arguably the most important and recognizable alterantive rock band ever; they're as synonymous with the genre as they are with grunge. Prior to that, R.E.M. and the Smiths are. In fact, that's what the Simon Reynolds reference in the first paragraph of this article is all about; he refers to both as "the two most important alt-rock bands of the day". WesleyDodds 11:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My argument wasn't really for the term "Indie rock" being their main genre definition as much as "Indie pop" - because nowadays, when people look back on The Smiths, they think of them as the poster boys & upstarts of that particular subgenre. Alternative is no doubt a very big part of The Smiths' history - as I've never disagreed with that - my entire objective here was to filter the genre classifications down to its bare essence, since I am in simplest terms a minimalist. I concede in the matter of The Smiths definitely being an Alternative band, I just thought "Indie pop & Indie rock" had a nicer ring to it on the main page, that's all. User: Anthonylombardi

Alternative rock and Indie pop could work since in the context of the eighties indie and alternative rock are largely synonymous. And that's what Allmusic.com labels them as anyways.

I agree - since Alternative & Indie rock are basically synonymous, & Indie pop addresses the specification of their pop fondness, I think we could definitely do away with at least Indie rock. User: Anthonylombardi

i always thought of them as a twittery new wave group.67.172.61.222 04:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought of them as the originators of emo.216.40.132.130 (talk)

Add another genre

How do you call The Cure new wave and then say The Smiths aren't? --Banzairun (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well....... The Smiths are like post punk or alternative rock ( my opinion new wave or pop rock) I tried to put it in once that they were new wave and i guess someone has taken it down that didn't agree. Come on put alternative pop or New wave more likely thats like the easiest genre placing for the smiths.......indie pop......ok. Was not thinking about that , I was thinking new wave all the way when I first heard them , you know the cure and .........um the talking heads, and stuff compare the sounds take your opinion . I don't know mabey im not right . - Ryusho2

Smiths aren't New Wave; in fact they're considered the turning point between post-punk and New Wave, and alternative rock in the UK. WesleyDodds 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING THE BLOODY GENRE!! ...(ahem)...Personally I don't think we'll ever reach agreement on whether they were "indie pop" or "indie rock". I think we should put "indie" and leave it at that. MFlet1 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We did have an agreement. It's right above this discussion. It's just that an anonymous poster keeps changing it. And you can't just put indie because the genre term "indie" not delinated in the "indie rock"/"indie pop" way is actually just the British equivalent of the term "alternative rock", so the infobox would just end up saying alternative rock twice. WesleyDodds 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a folky with a small interest in The Smiths, I just want to say that I find this fighting incredibly embarassing. If you place yourself 100 years from now, you'd look back and see that indie pop, indie rock, alternative, and indie are all the same thing. If you asked The Smiths themselves, they'd probably just shrug off the debate. Bjart 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

fuck off, indie POP? christ, they ony had a few top ten singles and are egarded as cults

just because they are pop and on independent label don't mean they're "indie pop" (neither because of morrissey sexual option) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.67.30 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Libertines/Britpop

The Smiths are widely recognized to have had a major influence on the Britpop movement, which is not purely "feelgood" music. Regardless of whether one considers The Libertines to be Britpop, they have certainly been influenced by The Smiths. Members of The Libertines often declare as much, notable music reviews often claim this to be the case, and a discerning ear can hear it to be true. Dunne409 08:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

That timeline is worthless. Dear god. rvilbig

I agree -- The Smiths had, for the most part, the same line-up through their tenure together. What exact purpose does the timeline serve? ――Anthonylombardi 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's two movements to remove the timeline -- unless somebody else disagrees & provides a reasonable argument, I'm doing away with it within the next few days (pending further opposition). ――Anthonylombardi 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2 more singles

in the singles section, it's not mentioned how the smiths released " the headmaster ritual" from "meat is murder" as a 12"single in germany. also released as a 12"single on orange vinyl was "some girls are bigger than others" , from the "queen is dead".also in germany. Wampazz 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The discography section only lists UK releases. MFlet1 11:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Discography - Fair Use

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -- Merope 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey - wait a minute! "Please do not restore them"? How about "let's discuss them"? That's more in keeping with "our" policy, I would've thought. Thanks for playing the online cop. But "our" policy obviously involves "us", I would've thought. A key aspect of the art of the Smiths is their cover art - no understanding of the group can be complete without an appreciation of their record sleeves, all commissioned and designed by their lead singer, as explicitly referenced by the article itself. This ain't Blink 182 we're talking about here. This is serious symbiosis of music and cover graphics. So - please feel free to respond below, thanks. But please do not just delete a bunch of stuff without justifying yourself in rather better terms than "I have spoken - Please do not restore them". Thank you. :-) --DaveG12345 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Our policy on fair use images is pretty cut and dried, I'm afraid. You can check out WP:MUSTARD, specifically WP:MUSTARD#Discographies, or a much more detailed explanation can be found here. I admit that I was copying and pasting the same warning on to several pages, hence the lack of a personal touch. Individual album covers can still be used on the articles about the album itself, so there's no real harm done. At any rate, I have removed these images again, per the aforementioned policies. -- Merope 05:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Strangeways-cover.png

Image:Strangeways-cover.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 05:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is dull deleting really the right way?

The Smiths – Cover artwork. -- Simplicius 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox logo picture

Is that really appropriate for an encyclopedia? Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit fansite-ish. Anyone else? faithless (^speak) 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Smiths' record covers - deletion review

I started the article The Smiths – Cover artwork some weeks ago. This article described the records' motifs. It was deleted by Majorly. There was no deletion request and no information on my discussion page as author. Please see the Deletion review. Thank you. -- Simplicius 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

It would make a lot more sense to replace the 'Shoplifters' live pic with a 'Strangeways' cover. And also the autographed poster is too similar to the first album cover and I think it's unnecessary. It seems a previous 'Strangeways' pic was deleted, but presumably a pic could be uploaded and used under fair use. SteveRamone 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To go about making this a possible FA

What prevents me from trying this myself is the fact that I don't have access to books about the subject. What do people think? There are many, many online resources, but not having the books is kinda outwith the Alt Rock WikiProject's standard.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Google Book search will allow you some access to the books (I used it during the COTW on "This Charming Man"). There's also a lot of sources available online. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Manchester?

Weren't The Smiths from Stretford/Salford, both in Greater Manchester, not the City of Manchester? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably correct, but in general use, "Manchester" means "Greater Manchester". Like saying Spurs are a football club from London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Uggh I hate Gr8er Manchester. And I hate the implication that Salford is part of Manchester. Salford is a City - in its own right. As is Bolton, Wigan, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Bury... they are in Lancashire. Check a map. 216.227.250.50 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Marr was from Wythenshawe in the south of the City of Manc, Morrissey from just over the City of M/Stretford border. Stretford doesn't have such a distinct identity as Salford. (Having said that I await having my head bitten off by an aggreived Traffordian!) almost-instinct 11:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking on any map made after 1 April 1974 will show that Salford, Bolton, Wigan, Oldham, Rochdale and Bury are in Greater Manchester. It is over 37 years since any of them were in Lancashire. Stockport has never been in Lancashire. 31.64.17.1 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How did Morissey and Marr meet?

Pardon my ignorance...

OK, just found this link about how they met in a clothes shop

http://reelaroundmanchester.tripod.com/id1.html

Is this true? Anyone know more?

It's quite a crucial historical moment in music that is lacking in this article... 92.6.195.171 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a different account of events http://uk.geocities.com/tania_bunbury/biography.html Macphysto (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From The Smiths: Songs That Saved Your Life by Simon Goddard, p.13:

Thus in May 1982, chaperoned by Pomfret himself as a safeguard intermediary, John Martin Maher of Wythenshawe took a bus to King's Road, Stretford, where he knocked on the door of number 384. And, in a direct re-enactment of Jerry Leiber's doorstepping of Mike Stoller, forcibly introduced himself to Steven Patrick Morrissey.

Hope that helps! King's Road goes from Upper Chorlton Road in Whalley Range, round the north side of Longford Park, to the Stretford Tram station on Edge Lane, so only just into Trafford almost-instinct 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Line-up

Can't help thinking there should be a way, within the infobox, of distinguishing the "classic" line-up of the band (Morrissey, Marr, Rourke, Joyce) from the other members who were in the group fleetingly - when people refer to the Smiths they're not usually including Dale Hibbert in that. I tried to do this by putting the main four under "current members" and the others under "former members" as per the Beatles article, but this is wrong apparently. MFlet1 (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need identifying in the infobox, it is in the prose of the article. --JD554 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion war with User:JD554

JD, please see [[1]] the Smiths homepage. Steven Morrissey is the name used. Please stop you frivolous revert warring. That is his legal name, Steven Patrick Morrissey. 'Morrissey' is a stagename and the name of his current group.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:NCP says "Sometimes ... a single word is traditional and sufficient to indentify a person unambiguously."
2. "Morrissey" is not the name of his current group: he is a solo artist.
3. The above link is not the official Smiths homepage, is quite clearly a fan page.

• From the sleeve of Rank: "Morrissey - voice; Johnny Marr - guitars ..."
• From the sleeve of Louder than Bombs: "Morrissey - voice; Johnny Marr - guitars ..."
• From the sleeve of Strangeways here we come: "voice - Morrissey; guitars, piano - Johnny Marr ... produced by Johnny Marr, Morrissey, Stephen Street ... words - Morrissey; music - Johnny Marr ..."
• From the sleeve of Meat is Murder: "Morrissey, voice; Johnny Marr, guitars, piano ..."
• From the sleeve of The Queen is Dead: "The Smith are Andy Rourke - the bass guitar; Morrissey - voice; Johnny Marr - guitars; Mike Joyce - the drums"

In every instance his name is given as Morrissey. If anyone is being frivolous, IMO it's not JD554. almost-instinct 18:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

He was know then, as he is now, simply as Morrissey. Anyone wishing to know his full name can click through to the Morrissey article. There's no need to refer to him in this article as Steven Morrissey.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the two changes I made constitute a reversion war, however, it would appear that I'm not the only one who feels that it is best to use the name he is best known by, which is simply 'Morrissey'. --JD554 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet, there are only three comments. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus, one which I will add to. Morrissey is his professional name and the name he is most frequently referred to by, so that's what we should go by. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indie pop

just because in america people refer to some stuff like paisley uunderground like "jangle pop", you cant translate that to smiths as "indie pop" , their early sound, sure influenced lots of bands, but they are not indie pop in anyway. at least "indie rock", and even that on the british terms what that mean (nothing to do with little fame , obviously) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.162.246 (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not indie pop...I'm removing it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.188.23 (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion concluded that it should be included, I see no valid argument or consensus here to say it shouldn't. --JD554 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But...Indie pop came after jangle pop, yes? Am I wrong? Indie pop was derived from Jangle? The Smiths should be classified as jangle pop instead of indie? What definition are we using the uk one or the american one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.188.23 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Indie pop. --JD554 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On the indie pop page, it says that indie pop was derived from bands like the smiths... it didn't say they were indie pop... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.188.23 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jangle pop

I don't see why Jangle pop can't be included in the genre list in light of Alternative rock being already listed, because Indie pop is also a sub-genre of Alternative rock. The Smiths are well known as pioneers in the genre of Jangle pop. It's even mentioned in the article. For a relatively underground genre, The Smiths are one of its biggest and most successful examples. Is there an identifiable wikipedia policy that favors listing all music by genres that are as generic as possible? Thorburn (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been exactly one month since I posted my concerns over including Jangle pop in the genre list. So far, my discussion has gone unanswered and when I make the edit to the article I have been almost immediately reverted by anonymous ips with few to no edits, save for The Smiths article. So far only JD554 has been the only registered user to remove my edit and recently claimed there was a consensus against my edit. For someone with so many contributions under their belt and barnstars, JD554 has yet to make any mention in this discussion topic. I don't want to jump to conclusions, given this user's many contributions, but the lack of any meaningful discussion on this issue and the many anonymous ip reverts lends me to suspect this user is simply using sock ips from proxy sites in order to avoid a real discussion.Thorburn (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the history again, I'm not the only registered to user to remove it[2]. IPs are allowed just as much of a say. We simply don't need another genre, the primary genres this band are known for are covered by Alternative rock and Indie pop. Jangle pop is a little-known genre that isn't of much interest to the majority of readers and so doesn't need to be highlighted as so important. You say you don't want to jump to any conclusions, and the do so. If you want to accuse me of socking, feel free. --JD554 (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Smiths had jangly guitars on occasion, but they weren't jangle pop. Jangle pop was a primarily American style, ie. R.E.M., Let's Active, etc. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because jangle pop was primarily an American phenomenon doesn't mean other bands can't be considered as part of the style. Unlike genres such as britpop and krautrock, there's no geographical limitations referring to jangle pop. The Church can also be considered as jangle pop, and I think it's becoming more commonplace to accept The Smiths' music as jangle pop too. --190.157.154.245 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Smiths ARE indie pop

This has already been decided, if you read above. There is no reason to change it to indie rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.241.105 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-titled album image

Anyone care to upload the image for their self-titled album? Appears to have been deleted Titan50 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Chloe Veltman

I'd like to remove - or greatly condense and reposition - the Chloe Veltman quotations that end the article. They express an odd, highly opinionated view by a non-noteworthy writer that Morrissey's cultural influence is limited to The Smiths. Their positioning gives them the added emphasis of appearing to be a conclusion. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

members

should probably only include morrisey and johnny marr, as the others were paid 'a wage'like session musician and morrisey even expressed that 'theres only 2 members in the smiths', himself and marr 90.199.157.143 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Court case

There is a sentence following this [3] saying, "Relations between Joyce and Rourke cooled significantly as a result of Morrissey's statement which claimed that Joyce had misled the courts. Morrissey claimed that Joyce had not declared that Rourke was entitled to some of the assets seized by Joyce's lawyers from Morrissey."

I've got two questions:

1. What does that mean exactly?

2. Where's the proof?

Unless I'm mistaken that sentence is supposed to mean that relations between Joyce and Rourke became sour as a result of Morrissey's statement. However, the two of them went on to document their experience in The Smiths in a DVD called Inside the Smiths, which I have. And the two of them seemed pretty tight.

Or am I missing something here? Shaneymike (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD encourages you to change the article. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that part should be taken since there's no reference to back it up. So if nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do it. Shaneymike (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I came here to post the same thing Shaneymike said. The sentence is incredibly arbitrary and upon glance makes no sense at all. I would edit it to fix this, but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Broden (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Videos

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the songs listed in the Videos section did not have promotional videos. I don't think they started doing promo videos until (from memory) the third album, although there were some recordings for TV programmes. So where do all these in the list come from? --Michig (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Repackaging"?

The "repackaging" criticism seems rather tendentious. For example: Hatful of Hollow is adduced as an example...yet there are no recordings in common between it and the first album. The songs in common are completely different recordings. That's not "repackaging." It was quite common in those days for singles to be different mixes, even different recordings, from album versions (more in Britain - but in the US, the single of R.E.M.'s "Radio Free Europe" is different recording from the Murmur version). 2fs (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Repetition

The adjective ‘Strident’ is used in two consecutive paragraphs. 203.38.100.131 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

that is quite strident writing!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of jangle pop to genres

The Smiths are a notable jangle pop band, perhaps the most notable to ever exist, so can I garner some support to add it to the genre list? I would personally like to see it replace alternative rock. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right and there are indeed some sources that label the Smiths as "jangle pop" ([4], [5]) and I'd support its inclusion; however, I also think that alternative rock should stay. ([6], [7], [8]) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Newly available photos of the band during their peak years ('85 - '86) may make a good addition to the Visual Imagery section

Made the following addition to the Visual Imagery section: "Their relatively plain way of dressing is on full display in the recently published photography of Nalinee Darmrong, who followed and photographed The Smiths for substantial portions of their touring schedule during the summers of 1985 and 1986."

The addition was subsequently removed as a violation of the external link policy, but I'm not sure what part of the policy it violated. I linked to a gallery of newly collected Smiths photos that were taken in 1985 and '86 but kept private by the photographer until just few months ago when they were published in a book and displayed in an art gallery in Washington, DC.

These previously unavailable photos of the band at the height of their fame capture a significant time in Smiths history, so I thought they'd be a welcome addition. I read the external link policy before I contributed, and this seemed like a case where I had a relevant resource (the photos) that could not be brought onto the page because of copyright, and that it would therefore be OK to link to them. My questions are 1) have I misinterpreted the policy? and 2) is there an acceptable way that I can add this resource to The Smiths' entry?

I have no affiliation with DCist or the photographer in question, so there's no conflict of interest here, and this is not an attempt at advertising or promotion.

Here's a link to the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Smiths&oldid=731545114

Mrjoethurston (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The external link guideline applies to the external links section, whereas you made your addition to the visual imagery section. When links are added generally within article text, they should do so only when being used as references to verify statements in the text, and it is difficult to see what information can be used from the link you provided, as, apart from the pictures, it is primarily a synopsis of the photographer's career, and is anyway unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source. It is also difficult to see how adding the link within the external links section would be acceptable, as it does not seem to pass point number one (i.e. it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it were to become a featured article). What the article really needs is similar images to the ones in the Darmrong link, but not under copyright and hence placeable directly within the text. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for your answer! Mrjoethurston (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Smiths Title

All through the text, The has been placed with lower case "the". This is incorrect. "The" is part of the band name and should be capitalized.

Daniel Burke (DLPB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.22.158 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Smiths. 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/20080926031909/http://foreverill.com/disc/heaven.htm to http://foreverill.com/disc/heaven.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828192036/http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid=1&csid1=1375 to http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid=1&csid1=1375
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416084408/http://www.thecribs.com/news.php?id=219 to http://www.thecribs.com/news.php?id=219
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/688N0ArXW?url=http://www.gigwise.com/article.php?contentid=15239 to http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=15239
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/688N3BRQk?url=http://www.gigwise.com/article.php?contentid=18006 to http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=18006
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/688N5mo0p?url=http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=26177_0_2_0_C to http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=26177_0_2_0_C

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) 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove Craig Gannon from infobox?

Either the band's core line-up (Morrissey/Marr/Joyce/Rourke) should be listed here, or all other minor/temporary members should be included (as outlined in the Members section of the article). While Gannon's contributions to the band are probably somewhat more notable than other temporary members, I don't think they are notable enough to be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmio78 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There were no other full members of the established band. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Name

The band name - is it in reference to the British government's database identifier tag for individuals, rather than using the terms subject or citizen? -Inowen (nlfte) 07:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)