Talk:The Durutti Column
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Sorry about that edit, MrH - my own listing had the typo.
- Is the misspelling of Durruti intentional? --Tothebarricades.tk 20:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vini Reilly redirect
It seems to me a little off that the page Vini Reilly automatically redirects to here. It suggests a) that it is his only work and b) that he is the only member of worth. It's like making 'Morrissey' redirect to The Smiths.
- Yeah, I see what you mean, I'll add that he played with Ed Banger and the Nosebleeds, but until someone's willing to do a full biography of Vini's life, I think the two are worth keeping together for now. And I see what you mean about The Smiths comparison, however Vini is really in complete control of The Durutti Column, writing and composing all the work, whereas Johnny Marr wrote most of the music for The Smiths. -PsychoDave
Why is there no internal link or page devoted specifically to Vini Reilly? I'd like to read one because I know he has some interesting claims concerning alleged misappropriation of materials by Paul Morrissey, whom he played for on a couple of records. I don't know enough about the guy to write such a page myself.--Megaforcemedia 02:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like you know much of anything if you think he played on a "couple" of records by "Paul" Morrissey.
Circuses and Bread vs Bread and Circuses
As far as I can see, the 1985 album is called Bread and Circuses, not Circuses and Bread. It says Bread and Circuses on the cover art, on the side of the case, on the back of the case, on the CD itself. It is referred to as Bread and Circuses almost everywhere apart from here and in one discography I have been able to find. This discography is on the Durutti Column website BUT states that it was compiled by someone else and doesn't go past 1991. I don't find that particularly confidence inspiring and there are numerous other gaps and flaws in the Durruti Column website. With this in mind I will change the album title as listed in the entry back to Bread and Circuses. If anyone decides to revert it to Circuses and Bread once again, could they please explain here why they are doing so and provide evidence that that is the real name.
- You have the 1993 reissue by Disques de Crepuscule - the original 1986 FBN LP and Factory CD (FACD 154) are both called "Circuses and Bread", as were the versions released in other countries in 1986. I'm looking at the Factory CD now, and the words are that way round on the front cover artwork, on the sides of the case, and on the CD itself. I still have the LP somewhere, I think. Rob Stanzel's discography  is the result of a lot of discussion on the DC mailing list, and has a Factory Too catalogue number. Here's the original cover art:  -- ajn (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Why no mention of Colin Sharp?
- There's ongoing contention over his inclusion in the "past members" infobox listing with an "allegedly" notation, which I removed with a BBC citation specifying him as a lead singer, despite his omission from the band's official site's listing. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources, but since it is a (hopefully small) leap to infer that a lead singer is necessarily a band member, I'm not adamant about including him. The thing is, though, he needs to be either listed or not, without qualifying it as "allegedly" per the MOS. AV3000 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Original Factory catalog numbers
When I overhauled the discography, I took these away. I see someone has replaced most of them. I'm going to leave them there (for now), but it should be noted that these are really totally superfluous in light of the reissues. The only people who would have a serious interest in them are hardcore Factory fanatics. (And there are links on the page which will take any of those people to places where those needs are well served.) But for anybody just now coming to his work, what the original catalog # of the initial issue was is of absolutely zero importance.
- I don't agree. The FACs give information about the sequence, they're useful if you're looking for the original albums, and they clearly identify albums with confusing names (see Bread and Circuses above, for example). And the advantage of not having them is.....? Rien Post 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you take a look at some well-developed discographies (eg. The Beatles discography or perhaps more relevantly New Order discography) they normally include catalogue numbers of the original releases. So I don't see why they shouldn't be included here too.
- Additionally, catalogue numbers on Factory are arguably more notable than some; for instance there's a section devoted to them: Factory Records#FAC numbers which even mentions that The Durutti Column's album's numbers ended with 4. --David Edgar 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the notability - yeah, I mentioned that, and the fact that all of that info is available on more than one of the links provided. Aa for the "advantage of not having them" - I basically explained that also. The advantage is that it cuts down on more or less (now) irrelevant clutter. But, again, if there's at least two of you out there who disagree, I guess I'm outvoted at the moment. I'll live.
- I have to concur with the "keepers"; the information is encyclopedically useful, and including serial numbers is de rigeur in well-developed discographies here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with the genre being listed as "post-punk", as very little D.C. material sounds anything like other music classified in this way (Buzzcocks, Joy Division, early Cure, early Echo and the Bunnymen, etc.) I'm not sure D.C. is really classifiable at all, but I don't think post-punk is it. D.C. formed in the midst of a wave of post-punk, and some of its members did post-punk in other projects, and even some D.C. stuff has a post-punk sound, but D.C. has really been a highly unusual sound in the midst of bunch of largely pretty similar post-punk. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)