Talk:Towers of London (band)

Other Stuff

I'm 99% certain that this is not a band but a comedy. (82.43.189.130 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)) This page is trying to back up the myth. It's a comedy project - for definite definate. Quite silly, heh, heh. Spinal Tap must be proud of their legacy!

---

I believe that this is a fictitious band created to provide credibility to the individual known as “Donny Tourette” who is a contestant in the 2007 “Celebrity Big Brother” running on the Channel 4 TV station in January 2007 within the United Kingdom.

The British press are all reporting (with startling lack of variation) that:

• he is the lead singer of the band Towers of London and many people were raped in this time

• He is a ‘friend' of peaches Geldof

• He is in there to have a good time

I believe that this is an attempt by the producers of Big Brother to introduce a “fake” celebrity into the programme, for their own purposes. A search of the internet indicates that the content relating to the UK rock band “Towers of London” has only been authored in the past 3 months, which supports this theory.

This is my first ever post, so go easy guys and gals. I felt it was appropriate to the “discussion” page, but not for the main article. Thanks!

---

Having endured their live "show" at Carling Weekend Leeds 2006, if it is a comedy it's a very bad one. Sadly this band are real and "Donny Tourette" is under the genuine misapprehension that he is a musician. Pathetic really. Rainbowfanclub, 5th Jan 07

Nice try but... no. ToL are a real band, who have been gigging fairly regularly for several years. Thermaland 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there nothing here about...

Donny Tourette being challenged to a boxing match by lead singer of the Cockney Rejects, Stinky Turner, and completely bottling it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.2.199 (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

History

• "They are well known for" by whom? This needs to be vefiried prior to inclusion.
• Citation re-added concerning criminal damage conviction - why was this removed?

cults & chavs

• "shows members of the band beating up a drunken chav" The language is inconsitent with an encyclopedia and is not NPOV. Princess Tiswas 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Again - not NPOV, and no basis for claiming a cult following. It's a small town high street, not the sermon on the mount. --Princess Tiswas 18:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The posted clip has 147,536 views and has even been mentioned in music magazines (such as NME)... that is a cult following. Read the comments in relation to the video, most of them directly reference the stereotypical "chav" (a term which appears in the dictionary), which is no different from calling the band punk, its within NPOV. You don't like the band.. understood, but no need to mess the article about. - Deathrocker 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• 147,536 comments would be a following, cult or otherwise. 147k views is just that - the number of times the clip had been seen. A cult, as your own link suggests, would require an indicative level of devotion or obsession, and a culture surrounding the focal object. Similarly, chav is pejorative slang, and therefore, by definition, not NPOV. My opinion of the band is entirely irrelevant, and not even touched upon, and your comment on "messing the article about" is inappropriate. --Princess Tiswas 12:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Deathrocker - If you are repeatedly going to revert changes, be courteous enough to make an entry in the talk page. This is not a discussion on the merits of the band, but on the use of chav as non-neutral language, and incorrect use of cult as an adjective. I suggest WP:RFC --Princess T 11:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment : Use of language for Youtube video

This is a dispute about the language used to describe a video clip -- 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Chav is by definition not NPOV, and cult implies more than merely a large number of observers or participants. -- 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated unsupported reversion

User:Deathrocker, please stop reverting edits without supporting your actions - such action is tantamount to vandalism. Citing "anti-Towers" motivation is a straw man arguement - the edits are being made due to POV comments & unencyclopaedic language - Tiswas^(t/c) 14:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Year of formation

The BBC states the band formed in 1999, not 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6230445.stm

HxC. Anarcho groaning...

Punk rock band, my fucking arse, Conflict, Crass, Icons of Filth, Dead Kennedys, etc. They were real punk bands. Punks nowadays are pretenders, theres more to punk than bleached spikey hair and a guitar with a distortion pedal.

Incorrect. Why are you name dropping anarcho and hardcore bands?... you don't know anything about punk rock do you. Yet comically you are pretending to know it all... research, then come back when you know a little bit about the genre. - 12:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

the band has elements of punk rock and hard rock in them, hence why they are sometimes refered to as a punk rock band

Grim Reaper66- 18.54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial controversy

Enough with the edit war on the word 'controversial' in the opening sentence already! For the life of me I can't understand why you all feel so strongly about it. Have a discussion about it instead. Personally I would probably lose it as I think it's a bit strong and vague at the same time, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Thermaland 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

UK Indie Chart

If there is no recognised UK Indie Chart per WP:A, there is no scope for including a chart position for it - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bubbles

In the trivia section it says that the band declined to re-record a version of the West Ham club anthem 'I'm forever blowing bubbles'. According to news I've seen that song was covered once already by the Cockney Rejects in 1980, and according to that band the Towers of London asked them if they could re-record the anthem. The Cockney Rejects apparently said no, and there was some controversy about a boxing match between the bands. Apparently the punk veterans don't like the Towers of London too much. So, according to that source the reason they didn't do the song was not that they did not support West Ham. They just didn't get permission to do it. Don't ask me why you need to ask permission for a cover. Maybe they asked out of courtesy, but that wouldn't be very punk now would it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian B (talk • contribs)

Punk Rock???

This band is "punk rock"??? They have more in common with Motley Crue, Faster Pussycat and other glam metal bands than they do with The Clash or the Sex Pistols. It's funny but even in the article it is quoted how they are influenced by Nikki Sixx of Motely Crue. To call this "Punk rock" is an insult to Punk rock. They should be classified as what they are, a "glam metal" band.

Instrumentally, they're a combination of hard rock & glam. The reason they're classified as punk is Donny's vocals are punk rock vocals, the rest of the band are hard rock musicians. Bucketheader 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Favourable Reviews

"gaining favourable reviews from some music news media"

can we have a citation for this? If not it should go-I've never read one...

Donny Tourette's Never mind the buzzcocks appearance

Is it just me who detects a huge bias in this section? If I remeber correctly there was only one joke that was "premeditated" (the one about TV series that don't turn into record sales) the other ones were returns from Donny trying to insult them. This section tries to paint him as some rebel hero when really he came across as a bit of a joke Agent452 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If nobody objects I'll try a bit of editing on it. I'll leave it as is until Monday and then do it if nobody has objected by then Agent452 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was POV, perhaps you would be more interesting in investing in a blog as a podium to spout your bias garbage instead of editing Wikipedia? - Dolled Up. (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

opening paragraph.

How can this article claim to be NPOV, if in the opening paragraph, the band are referred to as 'a pretentious, unintended joke'? The existing statement that they have divided the music press, with both positive and extremely negative reviews, is much more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.52.219 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

its about as NPOV as the average Sun editorial at the moment what with that 'warmed over punk' jibe in there at the moment. CBA editing it myself since some muppet will only put it back. 188.222.19.161 (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

HAVE THE TOWERS OF LONDON FINALLY CALLED IT A DAY..?

Considering their total lack of activity anywhere..

Their myspace page is dormant and hasn't been updated for months.

They have no record deal.

Their members have left and joined other bands publically.

Their official and un-official websites have long closed down.

Their last tour was 7 months ago.

Their last official album was deleted last year and is currently unavailable anywhere.

No sign of their 2010 "tv show"..

Much talk about a "spin off" band.

86.44.107.126 (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

F***ing hope so, be a good day for music if they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.170.97 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

SHOULDN'T THIS DEAD WIKI FOR A LONG DEAD "BAND" BE CLOSED DOWN AND REMOVED..?

Their websites (both England and America) have long closed down.

They been dropped by 3 separate labels.

They have "parted company" with at least the same number of managers.

They have lost all their band members.

Their lead "singer" wants to forget he was even in the band.

They haven't bothered any charts anywhere for years.

They have stopped touring a long time ago.

They are seen a a forgotten hype from a few years back.

Not missed by anyone.

Shouldn't it be removed and save space for real bands..?

89.101.183.29 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

This page was edited on 18th December 2023 out of malice towards one of the band members. This page needs to be restored to the content it showed prior to 18th December 2023. ROCKSTEADY GESTALT has made an attempted to do this. In addition, links to the Wiki page 'Donny Tourette' have been removed and the page appears unavailable. This needs to be restored. Jonny Klone (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Too much has happened to the article since 18 December to justify a clean rollback. If you have suggestions to smaller edits, feel free to request them.

Donny Tourette was blanked and redirected to this article in October by Ponyo, and I concur with that editorial decision. Our deletion policy gives you the right to dispute that edit by simple reversion. Sam Sailor 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

change 'indie' to 'punk rock' in the first sentence.

change 'The Kooks and Razorlight music with 1997 style Britpop' to 'rock and glam metal music with 1977 style British punk.'

change 'The band have divided the opinions of the British music press since their emergence in early 2004, gaining positive reviews from some music news media (Popworld) and extremely negative reviews from others. Their music was widely regarded as tired and dated.[1]' to 'The band have divided the opinions of the British music press since their emergence in early 2004, gaining positive reviews from some music news media[citation needed] and extremely negative reviews from others.[1]'

under members change 'Paul' to 'The Rev' Jonny Klone (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All done. Thank you Jonny Klone (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)