Jump to content

Talk:Kate Bush/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edits

To be honest I think this page is being, and has been, ruined by the inclusion of useless and often out of place filler. It really does seem like whenever Kate Bush is mentioned by another artist or even just by a journalist someone seems to scuttle off to Wikipedia and shove in a random line about it somewhere. I understand that it may seem like major news to fans but often it's really not needed and just acts as clutter. This doesn't seem to happen anywhere near as much for other artists, but renders the page really quite user unfriendly when it really needs to be more compendious. It's clearly not vandalism or anything but I think some contributors really need to show a lot more restraint. StevenEdmondson (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I will second that and remind those in agreement to simply remove gratuitous additions as soon as they appear, and also where they have existed for some time if the usefulness and readability of the article is harmed by them. As an example, see this thread from last year which dealt with the dubious encyclopedic qualities of a minor wardrobe incident. Sswonk (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC) See also: WP:ENC. Sswonk (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed awhile back and no consensus was reached due to lack of participation. My view is that this topic should be dealt with as a list in a separate article. Even then acts should only be included if and artist is notable and the Bush comparison/influence is being made by 2 or more major publications such as the The Times or Billboard or by numerous reliable publications. Edkollin (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an edit war going on at the moment adding and removing info about two Kate Bush tribute bands. Is this important enough to include? K8 fan (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I made one edit to reinsert an image and caption that had been removed without explanation (possibly because another editor removed the name of a second tribute band) and made a second edit to the caption to show that it pictured the first named band.
Am just "passing through" and will go along with consensus. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
My gut reaction is that mentioning one Tribute act without mentioning the others is unfair. The Dutch Kate Bush is probably the most well known, along with Fake Bush, but the as yet unmentioned Hounds of Love Band is probably the most technically accomplished (and is being managed by the person who was Tour Manager of Kate's only tour).
How do other band and performer articles handle this? Elvis impersonators and Beatles Tribute acts are entire genres. Is this important enough to include? Important enough to spin off into an article (though it would be nominated for speedy deletion). Kate is a unique case as she has only toured once, increasing the desire for tribute performers. K8 fan (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Late to this discussion, but I vote against including tribute bands because as noted above most popular acts have them, therefore I do not see the notability. Edkollin (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say that if the link to Kate Bush's music is clear and if the tribute band is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, then that would be sufficient to allow mention of that band. However, the band's entry should not carry undue weight. Esowteric+Talk 17:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Not any Wikipedia Article. A Wikipedia article that is properly cited (Or two or more reliable sources that demonstrate notability). Many, if not most artist bio's are not properly cited, contain original research, are non neutral etc. Edkollin (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble figuring out how to do the edit summary, so I'm listing my notes here, briefly. I expanded the description of "The Ninth Wave" because it's a single piece of music and entirely unlike the other side of singles. I added the release of the box-set "This Woman's Work" to the Sensual World section because it included all of her singles up through 1990, and is the one place you can find them (this is not noted in the Discography section). I included, too, the 12" single re-mixes from "Hounds of Love," as they're not mentioned anywhere, and are complex re-workings of those songs. I notice that no singles are listed at all, and there are many, including those released with "The Red Shoes" singles (e.g. "You Want Alchemy"). I also corrected the Alan Stivell info, as the song she produced and sang backing vocals on is called "Kimiad." A song not even on the album was named instead. The album "Again" was a collection of re-recorded personal favorites, not a "greatest hits" album. Hope that's all clear. TEHodson (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Word Magazine

"Bush is the subject of the February 2009 cover story in The Word magazine"

Yes, and? I'm not sure why this really warrants inclusion. It's clutter. StevenEdmondson (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Furthermore:

"According to Del Palmer he has been interviewed by the BBC1 who are making a documentary about the most admired and influential British female singers from the 1960’s onward. The special which is scheduled to air in primetime in late March will profile Bush.[75]"

Wrong section, if any? Video projects surely refers to her own, not those about/relating to her, otherwise the section would be a lot bigger. StevenEdmondson (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything Steven Edmondson has said on this discussion page. This article reads too much like a fan page.128.118.41.122 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga cover

Can someone add Midway State feat. Lady Gaga cover of Don't Give Up in the influence section

"I wanted it to be more pop -- something that young people would hear and learn something about Kate Bush.""

http://www.spinner.com/2009/06/23/lady-gaga-covers-kate-bush-peter-gabriel-with-canadian-rockers/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.6.172 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


WP:EL clean up

Have removed some External Links per WP:EL. --BwB (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Aerial and Beyond

I was just thinking that since the only thing Kate did beyond "Aerial" and before "Dirctor's Cut" was record "Lyra" for the Golden Compass soundtrack should the section be renamed as just "Aerial" or "Aerial and Lyra" or something along those lines? I think that the length of time between "Aerial" and "Director's Cut" not to mention the hints of new original material to follow make it necessary to have a new section (Director's cut and new material) rather than just lumping Director's Cut with Aerial, thoughts? --Duphin (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable idea. Do it. --BwB (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Done, Gonna move the info on "Lyra" from "Aerial" to "Movie projects" too.

This article is not very good anymore. Was it ever?

This article is really not very good. Unless you happen to be one of maybe 10 really obsessed Kate Bush fans in the whole world, this aticle is basically unreadable. Even though I like Kate Bush, I was not able to wade through this article.

The best way to improve the article would be to remove the large number of trivial factoids that seem to clutter just about every paragraph. I would also suggest that the article be cut to about half of its current size.

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to be concise and to the point. In contrast, this article rambles on and on. It also is biased in the sense that it tries to suggest that Kate Bush is more important than she really is. For instance, I looked her up in the U.S. RIAA database, and she only has a single gold album in the U.S. I don't see why every song from every B-side that she ever put out needs to be cover. Just my 2 cents. 128.118.41.122 (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia entry, not an exclusively American one. Kate Bush is vastly more well-known in the English-speaking world apart from the United States.K8 fan (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually outside of the U.S. she has had numerous charting albums and singles including number ones. She has won many prestigious awards in her industry and has been cited by many of the most influential music journalists and musicians (including plenty of Americans) as an important influence. Agree with you about the B-Sides if they did not chart anywhere. And yes some of her many fans are obsessed. Edkollin (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Charting is hardly a measure of artistic success, or of the importance of an artist and her/his contribution to music. If it were, there'd be no point to discussing Richard Thompson or Talking Heads, or any number of other significant artists. Kate's uniqueness is what makes her important--whether you like her music or not, her achievements and career stand alone. And it is rude for any User to call other Users "obsessed," especially if that User is here constantly to edit and re-edit this page himself. --TEHodson 08:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
TEHodson is absolutely right. Kate Bush's career has been (and still is) seminal. --Triwbe (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just had a quick look through it and the sections don't seem overly long, but what strikes me is that there are large chunks of info as to what the songs on her albums are about. This is unnecessary surely. If it belongs anywhere it would be on the album pages (although even then it's rather unencyclopedic). Release dates, singles and chart placings would be relevant but not analysis of the songs contained. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
As you can see from the above, other people don't think singles matter, but that analysis of albums does. No one agrees about anything on this page, and everyone feels too strongly to reach concensus. It's a hard page to deal with (I've given up, myself). Have fun! --TEHodson 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow that original comment was so ignorant, as if only having one Gold album in the US makes you less of an artist, especially when you are a multi platinum artist in many other countries... Not that sales make an artist at all. --Duphin (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Since there are already individual articles for every album, shouldn't the detailed information about those albums and their singles live in the album articles, rather than trying to have this article include every little detail? Synthfiend (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What "details" do you mean? --Duphin (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
To be clearer, I was agreeing with the comments that Tuzapicabit posted above. synthfiend (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sections

Lets stop the edit war over this and come to a consensus. Agree that Ariel and beyond should be a separate section. But i think you need both album and years.

Years|Album Names

Years|Album Names

or as done in The Who article

1970's

Albums

1980's

Albums etc

I do not particularly care which format is used as long as both years and album names are in it. Edkollin (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the Pet Shop Boys page - they used album titles/what happened during that time rather than years which looks much more professional and better. How the page looks at the moment is a much better way of viewing (212.22.3.8 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes that does look good and it has both elements in it. I played around with a very rough draft with something like that way back when.
1978-1980 Her Beatlemania Period. Loved by both sexes,press following every move,many television specials etc.
1981-1986 Bush dives into the synth era and is discovered by America. The article is not wrong in that by 1980 she was experimenting with synth. Although The Dreaming was not a American commercial success the EMI America release of her "video tour" started the process.
1987-1994 Increasing Influence, Commercial Decline. The solo female singer songwriter thing becomes big (Tori,Alanis,Jewel etc)
1995-2004 Disappearance. The Rumors, Q-Awards,becoming a mommy etc. This would be a brief section.
2005-New Generations discover Kate (older ones rediscover). Ariel. YouTube and other Web 2.0 advances make her old stuff available (for the first time in America for a lot of it)with the click of a mouse,Lyra fails expectations, 50th birthday retrospectives Edkollin 07:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this it is original reasearch and my POV and anything that is tried might be hit with that accusation.
Editors Note: What is sticks out to me rereading it is that is my line "The solo female singer songwriter thing becomes big (Tori,Alanis,Jewel etc)". That occurred in the U.S. while at the the same era in the U.K. featured laddish Brit Pop. This has reversed itself completely in the last few years with endless U.K. female singer songwriters. Nobody has talked about but my own POV is that Ariel's U.K. success had something to do with this. Edkollin (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Since when did Kate have a commercial decline between 87 and 94?? Also disagree re peoples POV - one should really stick to facts and cited references. Also who decided Lyra failed expectations? Again thats just a personal view as the song was nominated for awards. PLEASE lets stick to facts guys and not opinions(212.22.3.8 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Why do you have to repeat back to me what I wrote????? I know it is OR and POV and a very rough draft that Is what I wrote. Let's try this again. THIS IN NO WAY IS MEANT TO GO IN THE ARTICLE. IT IS MEANT AS BUSH WOULD SAY TO START ROLLING THE BALL. We were having a tentative discussion on different formats. Yes Lyra and The Golden Compass in general were disappointments in the U.S. New Line Cinema actively campaigned to get an Oscar for the song. The song ended only getting only one minor nomination. After Hounds of Love the next two albums did not sell as well and were not as well received. Edkollin (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What complete nonsense - TSW and TRS were received well and sold as expected, both critically reviwed by the emdia, charted at #2 and sold in excess of platinmum status. Agree - no POV or USA biased opinions. (212.22.3.8 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)) Agree - above statements are complete crap re sensual world and red shoes not selling well - lets have proper info here (89.240.62.212 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't think she declined at all. The Red Shoes in fact was her highest charting album in the US.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange that there isn't much devoted to her personal life. In fact, there's almost nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.98 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's little about her personal life because she has never discussed it beyond the barest details. We know that she spent 15+ years with the same man, Del Palmer, now is with Danny, who started out as her guitarist. We didn't even know she'd had a child until he was nearly 8 years old. We know that her whole family is very, very close and that they all work together. We know she adored her Mum, who died while she was writing The Red Shoes album and that her death caused Kate so much pain that she stopped working for a year. We know her father was a doctor, her brother Jay (John Carder) a poet and photographer (mostly of Kate herself), and her other brother Paddy a Renaissance-man musician who has worked with her since the beginning and exposed her to tons of music from round the world. We know she is well-versed in cinema because of things she says in interviews. What we know most of all is that she is a very private person who doesn't want to participate in the whole "pop star" culture, but would rather simply live her life and do her work. That's about it. Makes for a very brief bio! --TEHodson 19:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Brief is good - we can use what we have reliable sources for. --BweeB (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

New album

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b010vxyv/Front_Row_Kate_Bush_in_a_rare_interview_and_John_Cleese_reviewed/ New interview with Kate here regarding current and future album. Possibly some info for this or Director's Cut article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes could be used. --BweeB (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone just deleted a link to Director's Cut stating that it was "not a studio album". I believe this is a grey area. From what I understand, she has recorded new vocals and drums for the songs, and based on the samples I have heard, they are substantially different than the original versions. For instance Deeper Understanding lacks the Trio Bulgarka, has different drums, a harmonica solo, etc. If it is not a "studio album", what is it? K8 fan (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is certainly not a "live" album, which is the only alternative. I think they either misspoke or are just not thinking clearly, so I put the link back in. "Director's Cut" is a new album according to Kate Bush herself, and consists of 11 songs which originally appeared on "The Sensual World" and "The Red Shoes" (making it a studio album twice over!). Kate has re-recorded all the lead vocals (which in some cases meant transposing the song into a lower key), the drums, and added or subtracted various other elements. "Deeper Understanding" does not lack the Trio Bulgarka, but has reduced them to more of a background than originally in some places, and removed them entirely from others. As you've said, it also has a new harmonica solo and an entirely new lead vocal. It is a new album of old songs re-cast into new shapes. It absolutely has to be included as an album. Once it's out we'll be able to describe it more accurately.--TEHodson 02:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I listened to the interview (thanks for the link Tuzapicabit) and at least one song is completely new according to Kate. Let's look at other artists who have re-visited their material, like Mike Oldfield, who has remade Tubular Bells any number of times. Each version is considered a new studio album. K8 fan (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You misheard her--their execution is entirely new, but there is no song on the album that she has not released on earlier albums, although some will argue that they are unrecognizable. The 11 tracks are all re-done songs from The Sensual World and The Red Shoes, as follows:

1.FLOWER OF THE MOUNTAIN (a new version of the song originally titled ‘The Sensual World’)

2.SONG OF SOLOMON

3.DEEPER UNDERSTANDING

4.LILY

5.THE RED SHOES

6.THIS WOMAN’S WORK

7.MOMENTS OF PLEASURE

8.NEVER BE MINE

9.TOP OF THE CITY

10.AND SO IS LOVE

11.RUBBERBAND GIRL

From what we can hear of those songs played within the interview, they are very, very different in mood and style. I think people will either love them or hate them--they're a bit of a shock after so many years with the originals. Seven of these are from The Red Shoes, on which there are 12 songs total, so she's nearly re-recorded the entire album. It was an album made during a difficult time for her--maybe she felt then, or feels now, that she wasn't as on her game as she would have been had there been less personal trauma. It's an interesting thing to see an artist do.TEHodson 05:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)(added a new thought)--TEHodson 23:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

About Flower of the Mountain, fans on the Usenet group rec.music.gaffa discovered the original lyrics back in 1989. As soon as we have the album, it will be interesting to compare. K8 fan (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Comparing this to Tubular Smells remakes is hardly a commendation. --Matt Westwood 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe it was meant as a comparison, not a commendation. Regarding the original "lyrics," one can also read "Ulysses." It's a pretty incredible book. --TEHodson 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Can one? I've never managed. --Matt Westwood 05:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest edit by Edkolin re touring

I didn't want to just rudely revert what you just put in about why no other tours happened, but I feel it's an entry that is unnecessary. It pretty much amounts to saying, "She thought about touring, then didn't, then thought about it some more, but finally decided not to." It just seems silly to me. The touring section should be about what she did do, not what she didn't, or what she thought about. This article has become so long and rambling that to add anything but real information is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Thoughts?--TEHodson 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not been able to find the original report, but a UK music paper reported at one point that Kate was working with Jim Henson's Creature Shop on props for a tour. I would have to dig through all my KB files to locate it. A friend who worked for Chicago-based Jam Productions told me, excitedly, that they had been contacted about renting the Chicago Theater for a tour. The first, I lack the reference for, and the latter is hearsay. K8 fan (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
When was this?--TEHodson 03:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The following was posted in rec.music.gaffa on November 21, 1998:
The sharp-eared have noticed rumblings before each album about Kate touring. Once, a friend at Chicago's Jam Productions reported after "The Sensual World" that "Kate's people" had contacted Jam about Chicago venues. Lindsey Kemp told a reporter that Kate had talked to him about a tour at the time of "The Red Shoes". Jim Henson's Creature Shop was supposedly working on something for a tour. And most recently, Kate was reportedly looking at European venues.
Again, nothing that could be used as a reference. K8 fan (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
With 99.9% of music acts I would 100% with agree with TEHodson that tours that almost happened are not close to notable. I put it in because I believe that Kate Bush is that rare exception. I can't remember a to many if any descriptions of her that do not mention the Tour of Life was her only tour and note that the lack or her touring is important part of her image/mystique etc. Therefore I find her quotes on why a tour has not happened and attitude of about future performances article worthy. Edkollin (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Edkollin. How about putting in an actual quote from her, then, instead of this vague sentence about thinking about it? Use her own words--that seems a stronger choice to me. She's given several lately during the latest round of interviews.--TEHodson 00:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
And now there's another sentence about nothing: "In 2011, Nicola Roberts revealed that her record label had attempted to contact Bush for a collaboration but had not been able to make contact." This article is becoming longer without saying much--why keep adding things that didn't happen? It's odd, in my opinion. I think Edkollin's point about why Kate hasn't toured again is valid, but should be stated in Kate's own words--can you put in a quote, Ed? What should we do by this newest addition to a category that should be called: "Things that didn't happen, according to people who have talked about Kate Bush?" Thoughts?--TEHodson 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Nicola Roberts is one of probably who knows how many people who have tried to collaborate with her and failed. So not notable in my view.
The actual quote for the post tour of life period is 5 sentences long. Putting that much in the article in my view gives it undue weight so I decided to summarize as is done countless times in Wikipedia for the same reason. I did use her actual quote for possible future plans. Edkollin (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to take out the Nicola reference. I'll look at the quote--maybe using elipses I can make it brief, then you can see what you think.--TEHodson 01:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why is there no such section here? Just basic rudimentary facts which are covered in basically every other wiki bio I've ever looked up.

There is little known of her personal life as she does not discuss it, but what is known is fully covered within the body of the article, particularly in the "early life" section. And please sign your posts here on the Talk page. Thanks.--TEHodson 03:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tour of Life article needs help

Hi. A couple of weeks ago, an editor called Rowlandgarlander wrote out a minute-by-minute account of the concert, but failed to cite a single source. I pointed this out to him and gave him time to cite a source, but he said there was none and declined to tell me where he'd got the details. I've now tagged that section of the article, and would like to invite people who have a source for it to please offer one, otherwise I think it should be deleted. We have no evidence (beyond the filmed version) for what actually went on. Please help if you can. Thanks.--TEHodson 02:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert vs. Bertie

Despite the fact that Kate always calls her son Bertie, here we have to stick to the proper name, Albert. Thanks.--TEHodson 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why... There are many people born with a name but known by a nickname for most of their lives, If his own mother calls him Bertie who are we to dissagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.234.145 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia, therefore we use formal names. Unless he beomes well known on his own as Bertie, we know him as Albert. In other words, we call John Lennon John, not Jonathan, because that's the name he became famous under. Bertie is not yet famous in his own right and hasn't, for example, released an album under the name Bertie McIntosh, or whatever he ends up using on his own. See? We acknowledge Kate's whole name, but would never refer to her as Cathy, even though apparently, her family do. Kate is her public name.--TEHodson 04:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And he's credited on the album as "Albert."--TEHodson 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sound files for new albums

We have samples of songs from all her albums except Director's Cut and 50 Words for Snow. I don't know how to create them, so can someone else do it? I'm surprised no one's done it by now. Or someone can help me do it.--TEHodson 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Theo Bleckmann

I restored the four sentences about Theo Bleckmann's interpretation of Kate's music in the "Influence" section. For one thing, he's the only serious, non-Pop composer to interpret her work (as opposed to covers by other Pop artists, for example) and since the section is called "Influence" it's nice to have this one concrete example of an artist being truly influenced by her (most of the rest listed are "influenced" by inference only); the NY Times review which discusses Kate's and his qualities is of interest. I'm not sure how Brett Anderson's claim that Wuthering Heights is the first single he ever bought shows her "influence" on his work. Bleckmann, on the other hand, was truly influenced by her and has done a live show and an album to prove it. If the section is going to exist at all, shouldn't we include in it artists who really demonstrate her influence on them? This is my argument for keeping those four sentences in. If people disagree, they should do so here, not by reverting without discussion. Thanks.--TEHodson 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the Bleckmann content should be trimmed down to about two sentences, as the article is currently giving it undue weight. The whole section needs some cleanup, and needs to expand on how exactly Tori Amos, Florence Welsh, etc. have been influenced by her. Epbr123 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
How is four sentences "undue weight"? And how much weight should it have and who decides? The problem with your requirement that we expand as per the artists named is that we need quotes by them to demonstrate what influence, if any, Kate has had on them. Tori Amos has been asked point blank and refused to answer (there's even an interview on YouTube in which she becomes coy and doesn't seem to even know who Kate is). At least Bleckmann can demonstrate direct influence, which is the point of the section. And the NY Times quote explains how that influence is manifested. That's substance, at least.--TEHodson 21:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
My view: Keep the 4 sentences as they are. I agree with TEH about the importance of the influence on Bleckmann over and above pop artistes. --Matt Westwood 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Having a quarter of the section devoted to one fairly-minor artist is clearly too much. If there's no evidence Amos has been influenced, she should be removed from the section. Epbr123 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have just up-dated the entry to include a quote from him about her influence on him. Bleckmann is only a "minor artist" in Pop music circles, and possibly in America. It's a very big world. And right now he's the only person we have a quote from about any direct influence by Kate Bush. Take out everyone else who has said not one single word before deciding to eliminate the only person who has spoken openly about how she's influenced him. In a section named "Influence", it should be allowed to stand, regardless of how many sentences it required to prove the point. Since when do we care about length for the sake of length? We're an encyclopedia, and an online one at that--we're not going to run out of pixels.--TEHodson 22:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the way it reads now, with the list of people who have covered her, made comments here and there, then wrapping up with a serious artist's effort to capture her essence and a comment by said artist that sums up how and why her work has been important. The section now comes to a conclusion instead of just being odd bits and bobs.--TEHodson 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Three people have so far opposed the lengthy Bleckmann content, and two people are in favour of it. The current consensus is therefore to trim down the content. Epbr123 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Three? I can only count one: yourself. --Matt Westwood 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I am also fine with the Bleckmann content. K8 fan (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it works as it reads now because it sums up the idea of "influence" (a very dodgy concept to begin with, but it seems to have been accepted at face value); as I said above, now Bleckmann's comment sums up the idea of how and why her work is important (which the previous text from the NY Times review did not). It's one quote by one artist who takes Kate's work seriously--I cannot see how that constitutes "undue weight", another concept which no one has yet defined either the meaning of, or the problem with. It's a long article, with a lot of information in it, and then there's a very brief section on those people whose work has some relationship with hers (although the real problem with the section comes before the Bleckmann bit, where most of it is conclusions through supposition, rather than direct evidence or quotes), and a summing up with three or four sentences (depending on how you count the last sentence). Not forty. Just four. I would suggest someone dig up more quotes by the other artists listed regarding her influence on their work, not just how they bought her albums or think she's great. Then the section would make more sense and be more informative. I also cannot help but feel that there is an assumption being made that the real problem with Bleckmann is that those who are objecting do not know who he is or why his work matters. I expect that if Tori Amos had said the exact same thing no one would object, but personally, I like that the quote comes from someone outside the Pop world. Europe has always been where her work has been most appreciated, and by people who don't generally go for Pop music (and where there have been lots of articles written about her). Here's a bit of trivia for you all: The Line, The Cross, and The Curve and my last film played on the same night of a woman's film festival, right after a short German film, where the main character's most prized possession was her copy of The Dreaming; the film featured an entire conversation about the importance of The Dreaming, actually. I wish I could remember the name of the film and the director. Anyway, right now there's 3 for, 2 against (Epbr is counting Bigweeboy, who reverted me without bothering to come here to talk with the rest of us). I'd like to hear something concrete about why it's such a big problem at this point.--TEHodson 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You also reverted Spadebru. Bigweeboy was probably unaware of this discussion, so assume good faith. The section currently reads like an attempt to promote Bleckmann. If every artist influenced by Bush had their own six-line paragraph, the section would be longer than the rest of the article. Remember this is meant to be an encyclopaedia article, not a fan site, so we're not trying to include as much trivia as possible. Epbr123 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how Bleckmann talking about how profoundly affected he is by Kate Bush promotes him, when he is clearly promoting her music and its influence, which is the point of the section called "Influence." If every artist had their own six-line paragraph, we'd obviously pick and choose among them (and even then I'd argue that in a section called "influence", we should be generous, not stingy). Right now he is the only artist in that section actually calling her an influence on his work, and nothing about the entry is "fan-like" unless you mean that he is a fan of hers. Three of us do not consider this "trivia." I have asked for a cogent description of the original "undue weight" charge, but instead of providing one, or explaining why it is a problem, you keep adding irrelevant arguments. I don't see the point of having a section called "influence" if we can't include the ONE artist who actually proves that she's had some. I feel that I am leaving meaningful and thoughtful explanations as to why it should stand, but instead of responses to what I've written, I'm getting flippant and dismissive replies that are thinly disguised insults. It's four sentences, for goodness' sake, not a long list of bullshit trivia; we're not using four sentences to say, "love those really cool albums I bought when I was fifteen". He's saying something meaningful about her and her work.--TEHodson 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I abbreviated his quote. Can we stop arguing now, or do you still have objections?--TEHodson 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
And Spadebru's problem seemed to be the lack of info about Bjork, which is about as irrelevant and mysterious an argument as I can think of.--TEHodson 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the current compromise. You're misrepresenting Spadebru, who actually said "Four lines about Theo Bleckmann is excessive (note: there isn't a single word for Bjork). This sounded too much like a promotion for this singer.". Epbr123 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine; thank you. Spade's objection is there for everyone to see; my point was what does Bjork have to do with anything? That is a mystifying issue to raise. If he's got something Bjork said to add, he should add it. The whole section needs more quotes by artists, rather than us inferring influence due to style similarities or shared nationality. I can't see anything Kate and Florence Welch have in common besides both being female singers from England. Much of that section is dubious, in my opinion, but I don't just go in and eliminate things. I understand from your contributions that your primary work here is guarding articles, but please leave room for contributions by others. I do a lot of good writing on WP, and a great deal of clean-up of some very poor writing. I wrote most of the 50 Words for Snow article, have done lots of re-hauls on Kate's album pages, and have made real contributions to a few GAs and FAs. I don't like my arguments to be simply dismissed or my contributions to be reverted without at least a bit of discussion. I don't add trivia to any articles, and I certainly don't add fancruft.--TEHodson 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
And if you take a look at the above section regarding the Tour of Life, I didn't think what Edkollin put in was very useful, but rather than "rudely revert" it, I came her to talk first and we came to an agreement. There is a good deal of high-handedness from certain editors on this article and it rankles. Even your "I am satisfied with the current compromise" implies that you have the last word on this and your satisfaction is what matters, not what the majority thinks. It's very off-putting.--TEHodson 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You need to be aware that other's may view your actions as high-handed. You've done more reverting than anyone else in this dispute. Epbr123 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Whether it is a good thing or not; whether it is liked or not, the fact is that certain articles are (by default) "owned" by someone, usually (but not always, probably) the person who originally wrote them. As such, for better or worse (IMO for better) that person has most to say and has most influence over its direction. For some admin to come in and start giving opinions about aspects which are trivially unimportant in the cosmic scheme of things comes across as micromanagement. As such, Wikipedia is becoming more and more like the Dilbert zone. To accuse such an admin of "highhandedness" is fully appropriate in my mind. An admin is just that: an administrator. Not the boss, not the President of the Untied Starts of Merka, not the Lord God Awmighty, but an (ultimately self-appointed) administrator. And for such a bossy-boots to then accuse the custodian of an article of highhandedness is utter piffle. Thank you for contributing towards putting me off contributing towards your futile little religious club any further. Go on, bar me, you're administrators all come across as a bunch of hoity-toity self-important little nerds. I won't miss you. --Matt Westwood 19:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that articles are "owned" by the person who wrote them. Anyway, it doesn't seem as though TEHodson was the user who originally wrote the article and took it to FA? Epbr123 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not write this article and do not feel any ownership of it, but when I make a contribution I consider substantive, I will stand by it. I reverted because once something is in dispute, it's usually left as it is until the dispute is resolved (at least on all the other articles I've cooperated on). What I find "high-handed", Epbr, is your insistence on getting what you want without addressing even one of the reasons I gave for keeping the Bleckmann material in as written. You didn't answer one question I asked; you did not seem willing to discuss, only to continue to say "NO" with no reason given beyond, "I say it's too long, so there." Making a cogent argument for one's point of view is not high-handed, it's what we're supposed to do when there's a dispute. You didn't bother, and your tone throughout has been authoritarian, not cooperative, and you seemed to believe that it was now my responsibility to satisfy you, personally, if the material was to stay in. What I contributed in this case was on point, relevant to the section (which already existed), well-sourced, and brief. You set an arbitrary space limit for it, and would not explain why space was even an issue. There were more of us on the "side" of keeping it in, which usually is how disputes are decided, but for some reason, it had to be you who decided whether it was acceptable or not. It is not pleasant for those of us who write, contribute content, spend hours re-working articles, etc., to have an administrator who does none of those things throw his or her weight around and set a tone of "do it my way or get lost." If WP is to survive (and it's been going through a real crisis lately, with good editors leaving in droves because of a relentless stream of such encounters), you might want to back off the attitude a little and give those of us who are actually writing the articles some breathing room.--TEHodson 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't see how my responses were flippant or dismissive when I was just pointing out what the WP:Undue guideline says. Since you've joined Matt Westwood in making personal attacks about my editing activities, I feel I have to point out that it was me who took this article to FA. Epbr123 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You wrote: "If every artist influenced by Bush had their own six-line paragraph, the section would be longer than the rest of the article. Remember this is meant to be an encyclopaedia article, not a fan site, so we're not trying to include as much trivia as possible." Since neither of these sentences has anything to do with what I was trying, in good faith, to discuss (and neither of which address the reality of the situation, but posited further, entirely theoretical, problems), I consider them merely argumentative. The first sentence is flippant, the second, dismissive, borderline insulting. And it was in reply to a thoughtful post, not an argumentative one. It would have been nice if you had deigned to address what I actually wrote. It's interesting that you take credit for taking the article to FA status, and it reveals what I've been fighting throughout this: article ownership. You seem very unwilling for others to make a contribution, and your arguments against us are spurious and arbitrary. I just read the undue weight guideline, and it has nothing to do with our situation, but rather to do with large issues and creating imbalance through excessive space given to fringe theories and the like; it might apply if the Bleckmann sections had gone on for several paragraphs, but 4 sentences entirely about the artist whose article they're in? I don't think so. In any case, it's settled now (or so I understand), so let's move on.--TEHodson 22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's you who has been dismissive if you've only just read the undue weight guideline. Why didn't you read it when I first mentioned it? And you seem to have only read the first few paragraphs. Epbr123 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
And you just did it again: ignored everything I wrote and started a new argument on a new subject (the dodge-and-weave style of discourse, also known as "How many hares can I loose in the hope that she'll run each one down and fail to notice I have nothing substantive to say?"). I am moving on; I have things to do.--TEHodson 23:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Influence & Song samples

I was just checking out the "Influence and legacy" section of the Siouxsie and the Banshees article. That's what I'd like to see here, a full range of substantial quotes by other artists, of equal length to the Theo Bleckmann quote.

Oh dear, now you've called attention to it, that article is now probably going to fall victim to the axe-wielders.--Matt Westwood 09:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
We shall have to keep an eye on it.--TEHodson 10:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'm repeating my plea for someone to either upload song samples from Director's Cut and 50 Words for Snow, or to help me do it. It's very strange that the song samples stop with Aerial. Is there a reason for that that I don't know about?--TEHodson 07:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Kate Bush 1978.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kate Bush 1978.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Note re Theo Bleckmann

For those interested in Bleckmann's recent album release and the performance of Kate's songs at Lincoln Center, go here to read about it, and his interest in her as a composer: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/arts/music/theo-bleckmann-performs-kate-bushs-songs.html?_r=1 I think this should clinch the argument about her influence on him. Cheers.--TEHodson 23:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration for Red Shoes

Was it the movie or the original fairy tale which inspired The Red Shoes? A recent IP edit has changed from the former to the latter. There is inconsistency thruout WP on this matter. --Matt Westwood 05:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The movie. The "Michael" mentioned in Moments of Pleasure was the director of The Red Shoes Michael Powell.K8 fan (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thot so - fixed it back again to the way it was. --Matt Westwood 18:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

what about the record sales?

it doesn't say how many records she sold, how many did she sold? Beggsie221 (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Running Up T(t)hat Hill

IMO "That" should be capitalised. Reasons:

There are two usages of the word "that". One is a conjunction like "which", connecting a subordinate clause to a main clause to form a compound sentence. "I saw that you edited the page." The other is a demonstrative pronoun which specifies a particular instance of a noun by pointing to it (either literally or metaphorically). "I saw that page (which) you edited."

In song titles there is a convention that defines which words are capitalised and which ones are not. I am not familiar with the details, but the assumption is that non-capitalised words would be afforded less verbal emphasis when vocalising that title. In cases of "that", this would translate to: if "that" is used as a conjunction, then leave it uncapitalised. If "that" is being used as a demonstrative pronoun, then capitalise it.

In this particular case, vocalising this song title as "Running Up that Hill" seems wrong - it is almost as though it means "being a runner-up, in the manner of (e.g. Damon) Hill".

In short, I believe that this song ought consistently to be rendered as "Running Up That Hill".

As a parallel case, I offer you I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) - nobody would suggest, in this case, "That" is a word needing to be uncapitalised. So we have a precedent for the demonstrative pronoun use of "that" being capitalised. I suggest a similar resolution here.

Now, I've seen the sort of nuclear armageddon that such an argument over whether an upper- or lowercase letter should be used to start a word can lead to, having been a recent participant in the War of T(t)he Beatles, so I'm looking forward to seeing some serious bloodshed here. Don't let any of you disappoint me. --Matt Westwood 09:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be conducted at Talk:Running Up that Hill, where indeed this was discussed just recently: Talk:Running Up that Hill#Article Name Capitalization but that petered out. I think the current title is consistent with WP:ALBUMCAPS and WP:CT, but I remain open to counterarguments. Until that article names is changed, the title should be used consistently here. The article was moved from Running Up That Hill to its current title in June 2011. By the way, the album cover is no help as it spells it "Running up that hill". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Did as you suggested.
In response to your specific point, as I stated above, "that" is not a preposition, it's a demonstrative pronoun. Okay, technically a demonstrative adjective, as it qualifies "hill": "Which hill? That hill." Therefore it falls into none of the uncapitalized categories: it's not a conjunction (in this particular usage), it's not a preposition (why do so many respondents seem to think it is?) and it's neither an article nor a "to". So by WP:ALBUMCAPS it should be capitalized.
But as this has been taken to the specific page in question, we can continue the discussion there if you're of a mind. --Matt Westwood 12:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Kate's Current Abodes

Under "Personal Life", it's asserted that as of late 2011 Kate no longer lives in Berkshire but for what it's worth, this Daily Mail article published 3 May 2012 contradicts that: Obsessive secrecy, a £30m fortune and the trauma that drove Kate Bush into hiding. --87.86.118.227 (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Reenter deleted "sexual" subject matter

It was originally deleted because "Artists are not remarkable for covering 'controversial' subject matter, especially if it's not for controversy's sake. Also, the implication that incestuous pregnancy is comparable to male homosexuality doesnt belong in an article written in this century.)"

The comparison in the language comparing male homosexuality with "incestuousness pregnancy" is that they are taboo subjects. The source for this judgmental language was a 1983 NME article. I changed the article to note that. As I do not have that article in front of me I am assuming on good faith that the 1983 article was describing these subjects in that manner. If you know otherwise please change.

Individual editors should not delete material based on 2012 proprieties. Many reliable sources note that Bush was groundbreaking for an artist especially a young female one to tackle those subjects in literary matter during that era. This makes it notable. Instead of being deleted the material should be expanded upon to specifically note that it was groundbreaking and how it influenced the subject mater covered by female artists that emerged afterword. Edkollin (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This material does belong in the article, and I think/hope that the way you recast the introductory sentence should allay the concerns of the deleting editor. Well done. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Commander of the Order of the British Empire

She is on the 2012 New Years Honours list. But is she to be considered one before the actual investment ceremony? K8 fan (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you know this? Britmax (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The links are already added to the article. It was published in the Gazette. But I'm asking, is she officially "Kate Bush, OBE" before she receives the award from the Queen? K8 fan (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
My own question has been answered, as she received the award from Queen Elisabeth II on April 10, 2013.

Running Up That Hill

Sorry but I think Running Up That Hill needs the "That" to be capitalised.

It's a demonstrative pronoun: which hill? That one.

Contrast: "I Saw that You had Changed the Title" with "I Saw That - You Changed the Title."

I contend that in this case "That" is not a preposition.

"Running Up that Hill" just feels completely wrong. Anybody with me? --Matt Westwood 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The convention is to capitalize all words in a song title, so "Running Up That Hill" is always correct.--TEHodson 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't capitalise all words in a song title - eg. "The Man with the Child in His Eyes".--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That is totally inconsistent. If the personal pronoun "the" isn't capitalized, why is "His"?--TEHodson 02:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"The" is not a personal pronoun - it's the Definite Article. --Matt Westwood 23:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Vocal range

Encouraged by the "be bold" adagio on top of this Talk Page, I've refined the following text:

Bush is a soprano[87] with a range going from B2 (sung in the 2012 version of "Running Up That Hill") to D7 (screamed in "The Big Sky").[88]

Following the link to reference [88], she sings a fairly connected range of pitches up to G#6, which is what I would find the most useful information because it defines her vocal singing range; the D7 is more like an incident for which she seems to use a vocal trick. I therefore replaced it with this alternate text:

Bush is a soprano[87] with a range going from B2 (sung in the 2012 version of "Running Up That Hill") to G#6 (sung in "Kite"). Incidentally, she has reached D7 (screamed in "The Big Sky").[88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:93A5:1:0:0:0:99 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop promoting your original research on a forum on wikipedia. Regardless of whether it is true or not, it isn't a reliable source or necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.32.232 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"Inspiration" section

The "Inspiration for other artists" section is getting out of hand. Just because an artist lists Bush as an inspiration on their MySpace page doesn't make that notable. This list should be trimmed to notable instances where Bush is noted as an inspiration for someone in reliable and independent sources. Self-published claims should be removed (the list could be in the millions otherwise). --ZimZalaBim talk 16:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At four paragraphs the section is not out of hand for an artist as influential as Kate Bush. MySpace is a reliable source for an artist to claim an influence. Social Networking sites,blogs etc are the main way younger folks communicate. To not use these for this limited purpose would cause unintentional non publishing of legitimate information. Wikipedia is going to have to find a way to deal with this phenomenon as there are indications the mainstream media that we rely on may be out of business on unrecognizable in short order. If you are doing a medical article scientific journals are the only way to go. When trying to figure who is influencing an artist most Wikipedia editors would rather go with the esteemed music professor or journalist than the artist. This is just wrong. I fail to see why Kate Bush saying I was influenced by Elton John in The Guardian is more legitimate then her saying it in her hypothetical MySpace blog. Getting off my rant I do understand your concern as at one point this section was out of control. The artist should be either critically acclaimed or popular to get a mention in this section. This process should find a way to include some up an comers. Edkollin (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The key is that not every band's self-declaration of being influenced by Bush needs be mentioned in Bush's article. If the band is notable, add it to their article. Heck, even make a category Category:Musicians influenced by Kate Bush. What we don't need is for this biographical article to be cluttered with mention of each and every time some random band cites Bush as an influence on their MySpace page. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A subarticle or possibly a listing is not a bad idea. Lets wait until the editors get back from holiday to see if a consensus can be reached or to hear other ideas Edkollin (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Fuel to old flames but what does "She has been noted as an influence on artists as diverse as..." actually mean? If these bands have stated that she is an influence then we should say "these bands have stated that Kate Bush has influenced them". "stated" as an "influence" is very ethereal and un-befitting.--GMcGlinn (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "'what does "She has been noted as an influence on artists as diverse as..." actually mean?""
Obviously nothing. The whole section should simply be deleted. TheScotch (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. Do we need to list every artist who has ever name-checked her? No. But her influence on other individual, notable artists is worthy of mention. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Then put it in articles on these "other individual, notable artists", not here. TheScotch (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Category discussion

I think the instrument-related categories are a bit much. Her notability is not based on her proficiency with any instrument except the piano. Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that WP:DEFINING states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" then many of these categories are not defining for Kate Bush and are overkill.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Can I remind folks that as a BLP this article is subject to WP:BLPSOURCES, and so we cannot use tabloids like the Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail or YouTube videos to support material on it. If better sources cannot be found for a given item, it cannot be included in the article. --John (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Influence

Surely, a good first step would be to remove comments like Annie Lennox's, as she just states she admires Bush (which I'm guessing most musicians would say) but the quote does not state she has been influenced by her - and this section is called Influence? Rodericksilly (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't find evidence for *influence* on Tupac Shakur

The article currently states that Tupac Shakur cited Kate Bush as "one of his two biggest influences in his music", and cites IMDB -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000637/bio -- to back this up. The relevant text there reads: 

   Shakur considered singer Don McClean ... and Kate Bush as two influences in his life.

which doesn't, to my mind, support the claim in the text of this article. Searching the web a little, I can find various people all referring to Carrie Golus's biography of Tupac, which contains this passage: 

   He liked English and Irish pop.  Among his favorite artists were Kate Bush, Culture Club, Sinead O'Connor, and U2.

And that's all I can come up with; and I don't think this supports the original assertion either. I've therefore removed the sentence stating Tupac cited her as a major influence, and instead added his name to the list of artists who are said to have admired her; I've used the original citation to supprt this, which I think is more reasonable. --Kfor (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The main reference was the biographical film Tupac Resurrection, which used the song Wuthering Heights in a segment about his time at the Baltimore School for the Arts, with audio from an interview segment where he is describing songs that "...became the soundtrack to my life". The video seems to be lifted from the 1987 school "video yearbook" and has what appears to be Tupac's handwriting of Wuthering Heights in a list of songs. I don't know if this is a case of the director lifting the reference from the book you cited, but it was apparently important enough that they went through the trouble of licensing the song. Whether this is because it seemed incongruous or significant we may never know. Here's a short segment of the film on YouTube: Tupac Shakur at Baltimore School for the Arts K8 fan (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I am no expert on Tupac, but the film has this list with "2PAC Soundtrack" at the top, apparently discovered in his safe after his murder:
  1. Frank Sinatra (the best of) Fly Me To the Moon
  2. The Main Ingredient Black Seed
  3. Stevie Wonda greatest hitz
  4. Bob Marley legend
  5. Everything but the girl
  6. (not visible)
  7. (not visible)
  8. (not visible)
  9. (not visible)
  10. (not visible)
  11. Cheryl Lynn
  12. dd Force M.D.s (trenda love)
  13. EPMD Strictly Business
  14. Kate Bush Wuthering Heights
  15. Don McClean
  16. Kool G. Rap Dead or Alive
  17. Aretha Franklin Best of
  18. les Miserables Soundtrack
The question is what is the film's primary source? K8 fan (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's one more from Michael Eric Dyson's Holler If You Hear Me: Searching for Tupac Shakur:
“Tupac Shakur was always hungry for knowledge. “He was very clearly smart,” says journalist Allison Samuels. “He could quote Shakespeare.” But his knowledge didn’t end there. “You could have a conversation with him about everything,” say actress Peggy Lipton, whose daughter, Kidada, Tupac was in love with when he died. She remembers playing classical music and some Kate Bush music one night when he came over. “I remember sitting there saying [to him], “This is Kate Bush.” I listen to Kate Bush,” Tupac replied. “He divulged his incredible musical interests. He had wonderful musical taste, and he listened to everybody. Kidada confirmed that with me.” Lipton, however argues that Tupac’s interests stretched well beyond the music: “He knew about everything and he was open to everything.” Jada Pinkett Smith agrees. “He was quick to tell me what book I should be reading,” says Smith. He was a well-read brother. And I loved that because he always had something to teach me. And he didn’t graduate from high school.
Here's the reference for the book: [1] K8 fan (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dyson, Michael Eric (August 15, 2001). Holler If You Hear Me: Searching For Tupac Shakur (1st ed.). Basic Civitas Books. p. 70. ISBN 978-0465017553. Retrieved 31 March 2015.

First synthesizer use?

The Kick Inside featured synth (Oh to be in love). So the comment 'Never for Ever was the first Kate Bush album to feature synthesisers and drum machines' is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkycat (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1975 or 1978

It says on the article that Kate Bush has been active since 1975 but that was when she started writing songs. She released Wuthering Heights in January 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.13.6 (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Genre?

Under genre, Kate had been listed as 'art-rock' for the longest time, and now, all of a sudden, it has been changed to 'art-pop', which is not really even a genre. Can we agree that it should be changed back to 'art-rock'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.213.1 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree...art-rock is better. 97.82.193.5 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You guys need to point to published sources describing Bush as an art rock artist, or art rock is not going in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Kate Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

new picture

shouldnt she have a new picture for her article, that one is so old. 85.210.93.185 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It is harder to get pictures of a Yeti than the elusive Kate Bush. The official ones can't be used. The current one is terrible, but it is freely distributable. She is apparently working on a film of her concert series, and if she chooses to show it at a film festival (as she did The Line The Cross and The Curve) she'll likely present it herself. I'm perfectly willing to travel to Britain and photograph her at the event, if everyone reading this is willing to cover my expenses.K8 fan (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
it`s not that bad..it looks like her as most people know her..I don`t see any particular reason to update it regardless of the quality..if there is only going to be one photograph of her in the article personally I think it should be from her youth. 66.191.216.81 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If you ask me, there's something delightfully, appropriately whimsical about the current image. —  Rebbing  talk  19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What about her literary background

The article only mentions 3 novels that inspired specifics songs. But reading Kate Bush forums, there are paintings and other works that have influenced her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.28.178 (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Everett?

Not one mention of Kenny Everett? Kate Bush featured prominently on his television shows of the late 70s / early 80s, as I recall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.134.64 (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured article review

Since this article is now in Category:Accuracy disputes, it no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. If not improved, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review. DrKay (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bush's "support" for Theresa May

Please do not re-add this info without WP:CON. Several editors believe it to be WP:TRIVIA and/or against the WP:NOTNEWS policy. If you disagree, please discuss at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate_Bush ... richi (hello) 12:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen, Paul Weller, Johnny Cash, and many other artists have their political sympathies and affiliations as part of their biography. Clearly Wikipedia is in favour of adding such information, and sometimes artists have whole sections on their political views.
You can't simply remove someone's views only because you disagree with them. The article is about Kate Bush, and not what you think should be her view, and if you disagree with it than it has no right to be. 188.120.135.142 (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
See here please. The assessment there is right. At no point does Bush endorse a specific political party. The Irish Times journalist drew that conclusion after her comments on May. If she, like Springsteen appears at political rallies, or like Weller is a member of an associated organisation, then by all means add it. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Karst (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Count me as also opposed to including the challenged material. At this point, it appears to be both trivial and dubiously sourced: the articles supporting the claim admit that Ms. Bush has not been clear on the matter; the proposed presentation unfairly takes that ambiguity out of context. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the Daily Mail should not be cited for any purpose.
Even without my opposition, you are mistaken to assert that Karst needed to develop consensus to remove the paragraph: generally, one needs consensus to change the status quo, not to restore it. See WP:BRD (supplement). This goes especially for contentious material concerning living people: "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material." WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE (policy). Furthermore, there is consensus to remove it: a number of editors have given policy-based reasons for opposing inclusion, while the only proponent—you—merely edit warred. Rebbing 02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Kate Bush. 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:

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) 01:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Associated_acts

Per the infobox standards, the material should be used for the following:

  • For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
  • Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
  • Groups which have spun off from this group
  • A group from which this group has spun off

It follow with saying you should not use this part of the infobox for the following:

  • Association of groups with members' solo careers
  • Groups with only one member in common
  • Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
  • One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
  • Groups that have played or toured together as separate acts
  • Groups that are merely similar

In this case, they have had one single together, and she had sung back-up performances for him, but these are minor and it lacks the previous information in the infobox above. The article does not state more beyond what I have said and I believe their connections are minor at best from this. If there are things I'm missing, please suggest it here. It is up to a user who desires her inclusion per WP:BURDEN to suggest how they have collaborated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You conveniently neglected to mention the work she has contributed to on multiple Gabriel albums as well as other live appearances. To say they have only collaborated on one single and some backup live vocals is a bit of an understatement. 47.18.199.86 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, I'm not trying to say I am right and you are wrong, I am trying to find out whether its appropriate to include Gabriel in the infobox. The article does not go into details about how many albums they worked on together is and it seems to be she was mostly a background vocalist. As for "other live appearances", that does not seem to factor in as the infobox rules suggest that they must have "toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". Which according to the article, does not seem to be the case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kate Bush. 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:

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) 23:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kate Bush. 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:

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) 04:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kate Bush. 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:

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) 22:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Bush. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

What should be the infobox image?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Bush_by_David_Gerrard_(12966878834)_(cropped).jpg

This image is from 1978. You can see her face well and is from a period during the time she was more internationally known.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Bush_Before_The_Dawn_2014_(cropped).jpg

This one however is from 2014, making it more recent. She was also performing at that time too.


Both of these are good, but what are your thoughts? 100cellsman (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect there may be copyright issues with the 1978 image (and it is from 40 years ago), but the 2014 image is not a good representation - her facial features are difficult to discern, and there is too much black-and-white contrast. I prefer the 1986 image that the article had before. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well there's nothing a bit of Photoshop can't do. I'll try that out and if not, it's back to the 86 image. 100cellsman (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

The lead does not mention David Gilmour, quite possibly the most important part of her career. It also doesn't mention her slowly gaining artistic control up to The Dreaming. Other things such as her hiatus, subsequent albums, Before The Dawn and a bit more elaboration on her musical style could be worth adding too.100cellsman (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Live performances, Film projects and Video projects

I feel like most of the content in those sections are trivial and some could be placed in the musical career section. Otherwise the sections make the article appear too big if they mostly have what is unnecessary. 100cellsman (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Eberhard Weber

Per the conclusion of the main section of her entry on Encyclopedia.com (2004) [1],

Her musical experiments with instruments and musical styles within the framework of popular music—including employing jazz bassist Eberhard Weber on most of her albums and featuring Bulgarian singers [i.e. Trio Bulgarka] on The Sensual World—has earned her a reputation as one of the most creative innovators of the genre.

. Having come to the Talk page, I now see that this is actually an FA, which may account for my addition of an EL being branded as "unhelpful". Nevertheless, I genuinely believe the biography is not truly complete without some appropriate mention of the involvement of this highly creative musical partner. 86.191.67.197 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, FA was the reason. Either the connection to Weber should be described in prose, or not listed. Binksternet (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Then I believe that restriction may actually reinforce the argument for incorporating an appropriate mention of Weber's musical role into the text. And that it would probably be better done by a regular of this page (such as yourself maybe?) 86.191.67.197 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Discography header

Per WP:BOLD I adjusted the header to read "Studio Album Discography". While I'm not sure what makes live albums illegitimate for inclusion, this adjustment covers off the exclusion of the major release Before the Dawn from 2016, as well as major compilations such as The Whole Story, This Woman's Work, and the Remastered box sets. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have issues with this article.

I am such a huge fan of Kate Bush, but having looked through this article again and again, it really does not do her justice. I'm considering of submitting this article for a WP:FAR as I feel that the candidacy wasn't done thoroughly enough. But I'll raise some issues before actually doing it.

The problems I have with it are:

  • The lack of neutrality at times. (e.g. There aren't many critical reviews of her work.)
  • Some parts are unreferenced.
  • The sections "Live Performances", "Video Projects", "Film Projects", and "Collaborations" may have unnecessary detail and makes the article appear too long. Some parts of those sections could be incorporated into the "Life and Career" section.
  • The audio samples of "Wuthering Heights" and "Running Up That Hill". Yes those are her famous songs, but there doesn't seem to be any particular benefit for them to be in the article. They're just there for the sake of illustration.

Those are my two cents. I'll see if I can fix some of these problems, though this article makes my head spin at times. 100cellsman (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Why not be bold and make the changes you think are needed? You can start by getting rid of the awful lead photo. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the photo doesn't have a good view of her. I mean, I do have some sort of idea of how these issues could be fixed, but the more I look into it, the more I notice gaps. Just now, I feel like the lyrics seem to have been handpicked rather than exploring general album themes. Sometimes, I look at an article on how it needs issues and my mind just goes numb and would have to step back some time and get back to it. 100cellsman (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"is the first..." in lead

Re: this revert...

I understand the logic. But I think it goes against writing sense.

Think of it this way: Buzz Aldrin was the second person to walk on the Moon. He's not dead, but writing "is" here would be weird - it would ambiguously suggest he's still walking on the moon.

The same goes for Kate Bush. Writing that she "is the first British solo female artist to top the UK album charts" sounds recent; it ambiguously suggests that she is still topping the charts. Writing "was" is clearer, more natural, and doesn't suggest that she's dead. Popcornduff (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have self-reverted. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Childhood home

I was wrong in removing the description of her childhood home as a farmhouse, although by the late 50s it would surely have been a former farmhouse. But the notion that East Wickham is a village, or that Welling is a small town is absolutely untrue, and the source (which says nothing of an urban village) is so incredibly ridiculous that it describes the location as 50 miles from Stonehenge (as though it was of any relevance at all even if it were true). She grew up in a former farmhouse in East Wickham, Welling, but anything suggesting that this was a farm in a village is giving a totally false impression of suburban Kent. Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No atempt to defend that source, including from @Roger 8 Roger: who had reverted me in favour of that very unreliable source. I'll change it tomorrow if there is no defence of the idea that those suburbs are a village and a small town. Kevin McE (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I know the source is not ideal but sources on articles like this rarely are much more than magazine snippits. The article refers to East Wickham as an urban village, which is not the same as a village. (Same as eg Dulwich and loads of other places.) I am not so sure that the area in the late 50s was particularly urbanised anyway. The mass building of houses did not begin in earnest till the early century into the 20s and 30s where people moved out from London to be in semi-rural Kent. In that sense we have to be careful not to anacronistic by assuming it was the same then as now and that people then thought of it as they think of it now. I think it perfectly reasonable that people back then would have called the house a farmhouse. Even if there was not longer farming around it, the house was still a farmhouse if it had been built for that purpose. I found this photo of the house [2] - not ideal but it does look pretty farmhouse style. The East Wickham article shows the large open space still there, illustrating there is still an element of countryside in the area.
My suggestion is to leave everything as is but amend the desciption and hopefully find additional sources. I think the house should be described as a farmhouse, possibly former farmhouse (but we need a source to say that). As you probably know, East Wickham was the main centre in that area till relatively recently - it was the the parish centre that included the small hamlets around, like Welling. Hence it is likely to have had a certain sense of rustic importance, much like Old Bexley. Thanks for your reply. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Since writing the above I have checked further and added a couple of freferences. I hope this puts an end to any doubt about the farmhouse. I now think the original text in the article was fine and nothing needs changing. The fact that Welling and East Wickham in 1958 had only recently become built up is covered by reference the an "urban village". Any changes to the text would IMO simply be anachronistic personal opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
None of those articles describes Eask Wickham as an 'urban village'.Do you have any sourced definition of the term that is in any way applicable, yet alone any source describing that location as such? I can't understand why you are willing to retain the source that is so woefully bad that it mislocates south London by 50 miles. Kate Bush was born in 1958, not before the 20s or 30s. I grew up near there, and am 5 years younger than her: it is, and was, in no way a village. And even if some people "would have called the house a farmhouse", our objective is surely to be more accurate than some people speaking colloquially, and so it is more accurate to call it, at that time, a former farmhouse. If it was not a house from which farming was happening at that time, we do not need a reference to say that it was a former farmhouse. Kevin McE (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Recentism in "2022: "Running Up That Hill" resurgence" Section?

which is expected to bring it into the number 1 position over Styles' "As It Was"...

This topic may be outdated by the time anybody else weighs in on it... which is kind of the point. I agree that exemption from the accelerated decline rule is noteworthy, but should we really be including things that are "expected" to happen on weekly basis? Wikipedia isn't a current events site. John Bullock (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Likely within the week, when the next charts come out, that line can be replaced with what actually happened. I don't think it would be updated on a weekly basis, just point out that this 80s song will likely outdo a 2022 song on the chart. --Masem (t) 13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's worth including that the 80s song has outdone a 2022 song (I believe it is official now). It's the mentioning what it "will likely" do in 5 days time part that I am questioning. Arguably Wikipedia shouldn't be including the potential performance of a song at all, certainly not on such short timescales. John Bullock (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it has actually happened so its no longer necessary to include the speculation. --Masem (t) 12:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Dance

I think there should be a separate section under Career that addresses her dance training (technique, instructors, etc.) and any dance performances she's done, in addition to the dancing she did in her music videos and concerts (if any). nycdi (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has added a non-existent new Kate Bush album to the discography- please remove this (Wikipedia is not letting me edit at the moment for some reason, though evidently I can still add to talk pages). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Self-written song

The oft-repeated assertion that “Wuthering Heights” made Bush “the first female artist to achieve a UK number one with a self-written song” currently features in the lead and body of this article. I just thought it was worth mentioning “Where Are You Now (My Love)”, written by songwriting partners Tony Hatch and Jackie Trent. Trent recorded that song herself and this version was a UK number one in 1965. This song wasn’t written by Trent alone, but it’s still a precedent and I feel “solely self-written” might be a useful amendment to Kate’s achievement. Thoughts? Humbledaisy (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Co-written is not the same as self-written. Self-written implies that the performing artist WROTE and performed the song alone or with other band members. 68.37.171.1 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I know, I acknowledged this in my comment. I just think a note might be useful to point out the precedent? Humbledaisy (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What is The point of this paragrsph?

It is just a pointless namedropping.

Musicians who have stated their admiration for Bush's work include Cher, Tori Amos,Annie Lennox, Björk, Ron Mael and Russell Mael of Sparks, Alanis Morissette, Elizabeth Fraser of Cocteau Twins,Sinéad O'Connor, Dido, Anohni of Antony and the Johnsons, Big Boi of OutKast, Nigel Godrich, Damon Albarn, Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac,Suzanne Vega, Joanna Newsom, Fever Ray, Beth Orton, Fiona Apple,Regina Spektor, Imogen Heap, Sia,Lady Gaga, Sharon Van Etten, Katie Melua, KT Tunstall, Ellie Goulding,Sarah McLachlan, k.d. lang, Erasure, Alison Goldfrapp of Goldfrapp, Tupac Shakur, St. Vincent, Darren Hayes,Florence Welch of Florence and the Machine, Lily Allen, Paula Cole, Charli XCX, Little Boots, Kate Nash, Bat for Lashes, Tegan and Sara, Steve Rothery of Marillion, Sky Ferreira,Rosalía, Beverley Craven, Tim Bowness of No-Man, Chris Braide, Anna Calvi, Kyros, Aisles, Neil Hannonof The Divine Comedy, Grimes,Solange Knowles, Julia Holter, Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree, Robyn,Andre Matos, and Aurora. 80.208.69.115 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would describe this as data. Seems like Kate Bush should be mentioned in most of the articles listed in that paragraph, as she can be put in the context of their stories. But on this article here, we should probably take a broader view with more prose on how she influenced dozens/hundreds of artists, and what she means for these cultural movements. Complex rewrite... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's bad writing that needs context and prose work. In the meantime any of these without reliable sources should be removed. Popcornfud (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Is directors cut really not an album?

I think kate said that she considers it to be a new album, and it's all re recorded versions of the older songs, not remixed versions, but with entirely new vocals, I think that counts as a new album 92.24.144.253 (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

List of artists Bush influenced

Impressively well sourced, but this isn't good encylopedic content. It's just an unreadably long shopping list of names. Popcornfud (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the list is introduced as people who have "stated their admiration for Bush's work". This is not the same thing as being influenced by Bush. In the Sheryl Crow source, for example, Crow just says she "got so into" her, she doesn't say she was influenced by her, and so this feels WP:UNDUE and misleading for the article heading ("Influence"). Popcornfud (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've looked back at the Talk page edit history for this page and this was raised quite recently as a question, but that discussion appears to have been archived rather quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Bush&diff=prev&oldid=1176101372

Rodericksilly (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Man, I have no memory of that previous discussion, how troubling.
Your improvements to this section have been great. Keep up the good work. Popcornfud (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Bush/Archive_2&oldid=1246233755"