Talk:Madness (band)

Musical style

One thing that ive noticed in their music is that there are loads of key changes. and I mean LOADS. Every few lines sometimes - in 'our house' there is a key change every other line. Same in driving in my car. just thought i should mention this but im not sure where it should be included Adil Ghanty (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article

Is this article ready to be nominated to be a FA?

Not really, there are quite a few parts which need to be improved upon. I nomonated it a few months ago when the article was in a better state and it failed. I'm going to improve it to FA over the summer hopefully.Sam Orchard (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know anything about rules for writing on wikipedia, but if you have any questions about the band I can probably help you out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Take It Or Leave It

The Madness Movie, Take it or leave it; is not noted! It is an outrage!

It is NOW, but please help to make it better! I have a lot of info books about Madness and Take it or leave it, but my english is far from perfect. I write the fact, YOU "put the words right"! Madfan87 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now once again not noted? Why did it get removed?

Feargal Sharkey

Are you sure Feargal Sharkey has enough to do with madness to be called an associated act? They have done many other collaborations, wich are not noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reunited

Uuuuh....they reformed in the late 90s, hello? I don't know anything other than this to finish the article, do it please. 13:30, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

How is the neutarlity of this article disputed?

My issue wasn't so much with the neutrality of the facts presented as with the language. Things like "Suggs, Carl, Lee and Chris teamed up under the imaginative name of The Madness" and "criminally overlooked by the public and the first ever Madness single not to chart" should go; if facts can be cited to replace these opinions it would be better than just plain removing them, so I didn't remove them myself. --Weyes 23:19, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I'll see if I can change anything. Falcolombardi87 17:42, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy up most of the article. See what you think. Falcolombardi87 20:34, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Looks pretty NPOV to me now. Why is this tagged as wikify? That's the reason I hit this article in the first place, but it looks wikified already. Davelong 12:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether all the formatting for band names/album names/song names etc. is correct. Falcolombardi87 19:59, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I think I've followed the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) correctly and also tidied up a couple of minor pieces, it's looking pretty good to me now so I removed the NPOV and cleanup tags. Davelong 19:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, looking good. Thanks! --Weyes 08:34, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

"The crowd danced so much that an earth tremor of over 4.5 on the Richter scale was recorded during the song One Step Beyond."

Quite apart from suspecting this to be nonsense, where's the source? Also POV throughout this article, I'll make some minor edits, but it's hard to know where to start.

Citation added. It was also mentioned in the Madstock sleevenotes. At the time nearby residents were a bit miffed what with bits of masonry falling off their houses.

"The band's videos were highly creative and entertaining, which was partially responsible for their heavy inclusion on early MTV and on the BBC's Top of the Pops. The videos relied on humour and storytelling to an unusual extent, producing a product that stood alone as creative output, not just slick promotional material."

Certainly I think their videos are worthy of some note, but does this say anything?

"The show run until August 2003 due to poor ticket sales, a sad time as the show was deemed a success by critics and audiences alike"

I know little of the show other than it exists, could someone help with this? Burchill 11:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I have removed the following text from the bottom of the bullet-pointed section:

In its Spanish TV spot campaign Bacardi  : "Hola Mañana" uses like the jingle with band arregls

  One Step Beyond tones and the actors makes pass like the band members did it in 
  the song video. 

I feel that it does not present any new information in its current state; if anyone can figure out what it means please clean it up and re-insert. Cheers --^pirate 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a tv ad for bacardi rum that use the one step beyond as a jingle

---

I have a question. this may seem stupid to some people but there are seven people on the featured album cover yet only six members of the band are listed, as far as i can tell

This anomaly has now been rectified (seven original members are all mentioned).

Derek R Bullamore 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Movies

How about

Take It or Leave It
Complete Madness
Utter Madness
Divine Madness
Madness at Madstock

A filmography could be nice. Simplicius 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan talk and encyclopedias

OK as far as it goes, but a fan manual is not an encyclopedia. Why did they choose to sing this kind of music? What did they sing about? What sections of the public liked them most ? And - if I remember correctly - they had some involvement in supporting political causes... Why and how ? If someone can help I would be very grateful Johncmullen1960 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work

There are way too many pointless facts in this, such as dates when they toured in 2005, one off appearences, etc. In the grand scheme of things, it just seems out of place. There is way too much post 2000 stuff. Their heyday was the 80s, but there seems to be a lot more information about the last few years. Surely there's no need for a seperate section about 2004-05, 06, 07, etc. We just need one paragraph to sum up the events of the 2000s, and maybe a different section regarding The Dangermen.

I think at least a partial re-write is needed. I've got quite a lot of knowledge regarding the band, so I may begin working on the article soon, because it's just not up to scratch.Sam Orchard 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the 2000s sections that should be deleted or reworded. Then once the individual parts are shortened, they should probably be merged together. I copy edited the 2007 section and deleted some unimportant trivia and content that was either a prediction or a rumour. Spylab 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've been working on a new article in my spare time. I've finished my uni exams now so I can hopefully finish it, and ensure everything is referenced.

So far I have Madness' career split into several sections... "Formation", "Early Success", "Change of Direction", "Decline and Breakup" and "Reunion". Furthermore I've written sections regarding Controversy and The Dangermen. Does anyone have any suggestions or objections to any of the sections I've included? Sam Orchard 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dangermen and The Madness

Not sure I agree with the opening line of this article, stating that they were known as The Madness and The Dangermen. The Madness was a different band which contained some of the members from Madness. They were originally going to be called a totally different name, but I assume they chose "The Madness" for commcercial reasons. But it definitely was not Madness.

The Dangermen was an alias the band used while performing small scale concerts. When they released the dangermen sessions, they were still under the name of "Madness", so personally, I don't think it can be assumed that they changed their band's name. Sam Orchard 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• After thinking about it for a while, I think the best option is to simply add a section in the article explaining the whole Dangermen alias. I think The Madness needs a new article entirely, as they were NOT Madness, and their work is not even recognised on the official Madness website. Sam Orchard 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Spylab 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that The Madness was Madness and the album The Madness should be included in the Madness discography. Madness were even referring to themselves as "The Madness" in the MIS comics prior to the "split". The Madness (unlike The Fink Brothers and Crunch!) was seen by Suggs, Carl, Lee and Chris as a continuation of Madness, not a spin-off. The split, although announced as a such at the time, it was really Mark and Woody leaving (or being kicked out depending on who you talk to) and Suggs, Carl, Lee and Chris had always intended to carry on. The songs recorded for the eponymous album were ones that were originally intended for a Madness album. On Crunch's album it is stated "This album is decicated to the good ship Madness and all who sailed on her 1979 to 1989" i.e. 1989 is when The Madness finally called it a day. As for it not being recognised on the official Madness website, I think that is for dimlomatic reasons, as Woody was particularly upset over the split. It was mainly because of his objections to the name Madness being used by the remaining four that "The" was added on (although Woody still thought that a cop-out). Apart from this, it should be included because The Madness is a good album and provides even more depth and diversity to Madness' already outstanding backcatalogue, and means Madness beat UB40 outright in weeks on the singles chart in the 1980s. User:dominickearney 15:37, 11 January 2009

Article Rewrite

I've just completed a rewrite for the article, with the band's formation and history going into a lot more detail. I've referenced as much as possible, but if you feel there are things that need to be referenced, then please bring it to attention.

I'd appreciate it if any large scale edits were discussed here first. If anyone thinks they can further add or improve the article, then please do so, as long as the information is notable and not trivial. Single appearences are not notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Madness have made hundreds of appearences on TV shows over the years. Just because an appearence happened to be recent, doesn't make it encyclopedia material. I'm still touching up a few things here and there.

Any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer. Thanks. Sam Orchard 12:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if anyone can find a reference for the claim that "Madness achieved most of their success in the 1980s, spending more weeks in the UK chart than any other group during this period."

I've seen this repeated in many places, but I've yet to find anywhere to verify it. Sam Orchard 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

According to The Guinness Book of Hits of the 80s, Madness did spend the most weeks on the UK chart of any group (218) -- *IF* you count their 4 weeks on the charts as "The Madness" (with the single "I Pronounce You"). If you don't count that single, then they are tied with UB40 at 214. And if you count UB40's weeks on the chart with the single "Reckless" (credited to Afrika Bambaataa with UB40 and Family) then UB40 spent the most weeks on the UK singles chart of any group during the 1980s (222).

The individual who spent the most weeks on the UK singles charts in the 80s is Michael Jackson, *IF* you count his work with the Jacksons. Otherwise, the artist who spent the most weeks on the 1980s UK singles charts was ...wait for it... Shakin' Stevens, followed closely by Madonna. 172.164.57.107 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Funny how the conflict regarding "The Madness" depends on whether the group were #1 or not. I think it's worth leaving it in, but if people disagree, I guess we could discuss it here.

By the way, can I suggest signing up? It'd be more useful as I'd be able to know whether I was talking to the same person as the Madness discography page, as your IP is different. Samorchard 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a change to indicate a 'tie' with UB40. If were going to be consistent, we can't count chart weeks as "The Madness" if we're insisting that theyre a different band.

After doing some research, Madness spent 233 weeks in the charts, not 214. UB40 spent 225 in the charts. This is according to polyhex.com. I'm going to look into this further. Are you sure about the Guiness Hit Records numbers? Sam Orchard 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The above numbers most likely start from the 1970s. Madness spent a few weeks on the charts then, which would account for the discrepancy. 172.132.106.30 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got all the official top 75s, so I could simply count them, but I don't want to put in the effort if it's just going to be shot down as original research. --Hence Piano 07:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yeah, it's pretty consistently the same person you've been talking to. I'll look into signing up -- I just hate giving out personal info to a website.... 172.149.81.154 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All you need to do is pick a username and password to sign up. You don't even need to provide an email. Sam Orchard 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for referencing the claim, but do you have the exact page number(s) the claim is made on? Sam Orchard 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Former members

Is it worth listing the band's former members in the infobox? There are a few that are mentioned in the main article, although they were all prior to the band being renamed "Madness". Sam Orchard 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Chart stats

"The band therefore hold the record for most weeks spent by a group in the 1980s UK singles charts"

Only if you count the weeks spent as "The Madness", which Guinness recognizes as the same group, but you don't. Consistency please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.131.76 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's already a whole section about this above. It's unclear as to whether the band actually hold the record, as different sources give Madness a different number of weeks in the charts. Original research indicates they do hold the record, but obviously that's no good. Sam Orchard 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it to show that they share the record, for now. At least until this is cleared up by someone can confirm the numbers. Sam Orchard 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the "Work, Rest and Play EP" really belong on the single chart? Unless, the number of weeks should be 206. Madfan87 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It charted in the single charts, so of course it should Sam Orchard 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Candidate Review

Hello,

I am have undertaken a review of this article as per the request at WP:GAC.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I am satisfied that this article meets all of the criteria for promotion to GA Status. The article is well written, has fantastic and correct use of images, makes full use of references, is written from a neutral point of view, the article is stable. The article covers the topic very well indeed.

The only comments I feel I could add in addition to this is, I hope the editors who have worked hard to bring this article to GA Status continue to apply this work to other articles as well. :)

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Pursey 14:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

cleaned up well

this article seems to be put together better then it has been in the recent year and past. i think with a few touch ups this could be a solid contender as a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.142.73 (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC) sorry about not signing in. im a member, hopefully this topic spawns some good thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsoso (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone magazine clueless reviews

I remember enjoying the first two albums by The Specials and Madness when they were released. They got strong reviews in the the U.K. press, as well as the U.S. independent music media. But the clueless "Rolling Stone" dismissed them at the time. Looking back, 25 years later, it's obvious that the U.K. weeklies were right and "Rolling Stone" was wrong. I mean, the first Specials album is widely recognized today as a classic. And the first three albums by Madness are considered to be outstanding, each containing a number of pop gems. And yet, this article only quotes "Rolling Stone's" laughably negative reviews (which were wrong back then and today simply sound idiotic). "Rolling Stone" has no credibility left in music---hell, the magazine spends all of its time these day simply trying to see how much cleavage they can display on their cover, (as they give endless cover stories to mediocrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to find reviews for albums 25 years old. If you can find any, with a reliable source, please include them. Sam Orchard (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Band Logo

Maybe state that the M/Bowlerhat logo was later replaced by the M wearing a crown logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seperate chapter

i think the dangermen and the current album should (after it's release) definately get seperate time chapters.

Morris Minor And The Majors

Just out of curiosity;

It is stated, that Madness at a point called themselves Morris Minor And The Majors.

Does anybody knows if it in fact was Madness that got at british top-4 hit in 1987 with "Stutterrap (No Sleep 'Till Bedtimne)" under the name "Morris Minor & The Majors" (This song was a parody of Beastie Boys No Sleep 'Till Brooklyn).

Hope that someone can help - thanks in advance.

René —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.130.148 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Madness were just called "Morris and the Minors" - it wasn't them who recorded the song you mention. Hope that clears it up Sam Orchard (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How many?

It would be interesting to know how many albums this group has sold in the UK and/or worldwide. And write it in the introduction text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.242.163 (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree! I was wondering the same thing. Can anyone find a quotable source on this? 212.64.106.232 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Richter Scale

There is a story here, but it has got a bit exaggerated with the telling. See the table of Richter magnitudes. It is seriously not credible that a Madness gig reached 4.5 on the scale. This is greater than an atomic bomb. However, something occurred. Here's a better reference from the Telegraph that actually quotes a geologist from the British Geological Survey. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2001/08/13/brjumpy.xml. It still smells a bit dodgy to me, but I would suggest using this cite and toning down the claims. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Primrose Hill

Regarding this song and its alleged similarity to The Beatles, is it really sensible to repeat one reviewer's opinion as fact? Particularly as the reviewer in question seems to be specifically refuting a Kinks influence, having apparently missed the glaringly obvious: that the narrative POV in "Primrose Hill" is an inversion of, or answer to, that of "Waterloo Sunset". -- 88.111.110.7 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If Primose Hill sounds like any Beatles song, then it is Penny Lane. It has the same stacato rhythm, is about a place local to the band, tells a story of the comings and goings in that place and has brass band arrangements. The Strawberry Fields comparison comes from an All Music Guide review. I have found All Music Guide articles and review relating to Madness as poorly researched, and would advise caution in citing them. --Dominickearney (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Places of perfomance 2009

They have just been announced to play at Roskilde Festival 2009 (link to Roskilde Festival) 217.60.63.10 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) LAU (DK)

Band Members Information

Hello,

There is a huge source of information regarding the expansion of the articles on the individual band members as well as some of the main article on Madness as a whole. I think I may add to the individual members because there is a brilliant source of information on Madness Central in the "In Print" section. Information like - i.e., where Woody was born, when/how Mike Barson started playing piano, that sort of thing, it's all there at the Madness Central Site, in the In Print section. I'd recommend doing research there and thus expanding those articles on the band members because it is only Suggs that has a significantly long or detailed article.

Madness In Print Section —Preceding unsigned comment added by CampbellTrain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake

The Finsbury Park earthquake story seems to be controversial, so I have simply referred to it as "an extraordinary event" and then added two straight quotes - this should allow the reader to make up their own mind. Slightly surprisingly, it looks like the original claims of 4.5 aren't exaggerated. (I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so if I've gone wrong somewhere...)213.106.66.185 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Chris

Confusion about Skinheads

"Early in their career, Madness were linked to skinheads; members of a British working class subculture that the media often stereotyped as racist (although many skinheads, including the original generation, are non-racist or anti-racist). Not only were Madness, along with other 2 Tone bands, popular with skinheads, but it was said that the band members themselves were associated with the subculture. The band's relationship with the skinheads varied at times."

I'm confuse about what type of skinheads they were associated with, it should be clearer. Also, instead of putting all the skinheads under the same term, you could call white-power skinheads - boneheads and leave the term skinheads for the real ones. It's confusing the way it's written right now and gives out a bad name for today's skinheads... I just registered so I'm not really used to editing, I'm just trying to help make this article better.

Antitude420 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They regularly had racist skinheads at their concerts and did little to discourage them. I saw an interview from a few years back where they tried to excuse theis by saying "we were young". --Michig (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

More references.

The "2004–present: The Dangermen, The Liberty of Norton Folgate and beyond" and "Associated acts" sections need additional references. Add the "Needs additional references" tag to both. '| () () `'/ I> (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)