Jump to content

Talk:Mark E. Smith/Archive 1

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

Untitled

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

Regarded by many/ bewildering

Although a google of this topic shows evidence for the assertion, no Fall fans were confused by the typically Mark performance on Newsnight. Many Newsnight viewers would have been bewildered; Peel would have loved it.

Whatever, can we not have some indication of what he said? Rojomoke (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Meetings with John Peel

The article says that Mark E Smith and John Peel "met only a handful of times". To me "a handful" means maybe five or six - certainly no more than ten - but The Fall did maybe over twenty sessions for John Peel's show* and surely the two must have at least met at each of these?

*At the John Peel article it says 24.

The sessions were not recorded in the presence of Peel. --Dannyno 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I remember from an interview, somewhere, that it was more like twice. One of them said - and I can't remember which one, probably Mark - that they didn't want to ruin the relationship by familarity. Fair enough. + Ceoil 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Money in house

Removed the bit about the distrust of banks. Can't put that, the poor bloke might get burgled!138.253.201.25 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's from a publicly available source it goes in the article. We're not the subject's friends; we're not here to help him or boost his career. If he blabs out his home address and hours of residence to The Times, and they publish those facts, they go in the article. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong wrong wrong. see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, which says that articles must have due regard for privacy. Is MES's home address an encyclopedically relevant fact? No. So it wouldn't go in, even if it's discoverable or publishede elsewhere. --Dannyno 08:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sell out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_3eBFjCNIo

Mark cashes his check. Is it right? I feel my heart breaking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.216.20 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Influences

The article says that "in interviews, he has cited Colin Wilson, Wyndham Lewis, H. P. Lovecraft, and Philip K. Dick as influences", and gives a link to Stewart Lee's article on him here to support this. But the Stewart Lee piece isn't an interview - it's written in that style, but at heart it's a mass of research from books and a DVD - and Lee attributes those influences to him, drawing either on an unspecified source, or on his own judgement. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

The article gives MES's birthplace as Salford but I'm pretty sure he was actually born in what's now North Manchester General Hospital in Crumpsall. Can anybody confirm either way? BTLizard 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GUSHING

Anyone else feel that this article is way too subjective? I sure do.

Plus, it is mentioned twice that he played Jesus. Redundant.

Nervousbreakdance


yes it it too subjective the Fall were a happening band in 1976, yet are decribed as post punk, clearly nothing post about them, someone is clearly too young to know what they are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peta-x (talk • contribs) 19:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

"Post" in the sense of "post-punk" means "informed by and progressing from", like in Post-modernism. It's not temporal. There were many postpunk bands who formed and released records before punk became huge... which also brings up the fact: punk existed before it was huge.71.104.8.96 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only 50

He looks knackerd for his age!!

So would you if you'd made 30 of the best records since 1977. --sparkl!sm talk 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And downed the amount of speed and mild that he has! Bless him... FelixFelix talk 17:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

24 Hour Party People

I've edited to the effect that he was in it (as a cameo in a queue outside the Hac), but his character (as a young man) was also portrayed by Sam Riley, though this scene was cut from the final film. I took out the fact that Riley also played Ian Curtis in Control because it clogs up what is already a pretty unwieldy sentence. Millichip (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was cut.. I wondered why I couldn't remember that bit. Good catch! Flowerparty☀ 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

We keep getting Gorillaz added as an associated act on the basis of Smith contributing vocals to one track by them. This isn't enough to be included here. Smith has made guest appearances with probably dozens of other artists/bands over the last 33 years or so, from Jon the Postman in 1978 right up to Gorillaz recently, and listing them all as associated acts doesn't make sense. If anyone fancies listing all of these guest appearances in the discography section, however, that would be worthwhile, I think.--Michig (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ballet

He provided the music for a ballet which was called (i think) I am kurious oranj. Can anybody provide more details82.42.121.120 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is generally credited to The Fall rather than Smith himself. More details can be found at the I Am Kurious Oranj page. Thanks --sparkl!sm hey! 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

Should some of the section about The Fall be split into a separate section covering personal life, like marriages, the red squirrel incident, reading the sports results etc? I think some mention should be made of Mark's sense of humour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timalmond (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

problem is that his wives all joined the band, but agree re separate section. Could also cover his time in Edinburgh etc. Ceoil (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Just realised that the message I was replying to... was five years ago  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Early life

I've just made three changes to the Early life section. I dare not do any more because I have a massive conflict of interest and I cannot see the sources. I would appreciate it if someone could review the section as it was prior to my edits, comparing it with the cited sources because if it was an accurate paraphrase then the sources are crap.

  • There has never been a "Sedgely Primary School" in the Prestwich area. At the time of Mark's attendance, it was Sedgley (sic) Park County Primary School.
  • He didn't attend "Stand Grammar School", which didn't even exist after the 1930s, at which point it was split into two separate schools with Stand Grammar School for Boys operating on the extant site and a new Stand Grammar School for Girls being built a good few hundred yards away. SGS Boys is where I first came across him.
  • The article almost makes it sound like he lived a bucolic existence at his childhood home in Prestwich but he did not. Prestwich hadn't been a "village" since before WW2 (although the name is currently in vogue again as a marketing exercise). No house is other than "quiet" unless it is suffering from dire subsidence or similar (not actually impossible in that area, I admit, given the Agecroft Colliery galleries). The road upon which it sat was by no means quiet and the area was no more leafy than any other suburban street of the time. I know because I visited there when we were kids but, of course, that is WP:OR.
  • The Zulu thing may be true but it sounds like the sort of blarney he used to come up with when drinking in the Red Lion, Prestwich. The owners of the Mayfair Cinema, for that it was, were notoriously tight-fisted and the place actually burned down suspiciously on two occasions, when a refurbishment was on the cards! I may be able to check out that particular gem as I have a load of old copies of the Prestwich and Whitefield Guide from the period.

My edits fixed some of the above issues but not all of them because, as I say, I cannot see the sources. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't deny that there are/were some leafy areas, btw. Lol Creme, who also went to SGS Boys, grew up in one small such area adjoining Heaton Park. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite the claim by the BBC, I never knew meat was produced in a factory. Martinevans123 (talk
Ha! If I remember correctly, it was the bacon processors on Stanley Road in Whitefield. - Sitush (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sitush, thanks for these catches. Have trimmed accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: That may well be a massive COI- but it's the coolest COI ever!!! :) Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, Ceoil. Serial Number 54129, that's probably the first time I have ever been associated with the word cool, although I do have a bunch of COI issues with various notable people. But one should not namedrop, as HM The Queen said to me only the other day.
FWIW, Guy Garvey went to the same school, in its late incarnation as a sixth form college. It really should have a separate article.
...quoting WP:MESOUTCIOMES, of course  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Presumably WP:MESOUTCIOMES is policy, rather than mere pseud-guidance-mag-ed. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Organisation

I know the death is recent and all, but shouldn’t it be closer to the legacy part and the close of the article instead of preceding the personality and vocal style sections? Kafka Liz (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, and now moved-uh. The structure-uh makes no sense yet-ah, as the Fall sect is still underdeveloped-uh, and that should be the framewerk-ah. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Should be all of these-ah. Keep up the good work. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I think -ah until about 1984, then -uh. Unfortunately I'm not a scientist; though I play one on fall.net Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

It seems very obvious to me that this version is much fuller and better referenced than this version. Rather than simply reverting, can we have a discussion about this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thats rich, considering you have spent much of today reverting me on matters of fact, when the article was clearly under development and undergoing major edits, as well as adjitating to have me blocked on AN/I. You cant have it both ways. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, we've all had conflicted edits now, across various pages. At least you are both talking. Can I suggest that any reports elsewhere are withdrawn and that the pair of you, and anyone else interested, sort this out on this talk page? You know what you are doing and there really is no need for it. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I think my position is clear. I want nothing to do with these "editors", and do not want my contributions to this page to remain. Ive noticed before that the editing area on post punk articles is toxic and petty, but was fooled twice in thinking pockets are salvageable. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
You don't own the article or your contributions. As far as I can see, the person who calls other pricks seems to be the toxic one, not the others. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Could someone give me a nutshell of what is disputed here? I just keep seeing the lede disappearing and reappearing seemingly at random. Every time I try to read though and get the gist, it changes. What is disputed here? Tell me, so I can either address it or work around it. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    Its about how you think other people should be treated Liz; you might remember making nuanced and encouraging suggestions in a collegial forum, rather than blind reverting during complex edits, followed by baiting, followed by an/i reports. Decency, rather than bludgeoning, makes for better content, which seems to have been lost here. I think Ghmyrtle misread the situation, and went all in to a long term and highly problematic administrator. Willfully or not, he then doubled down, not for me to say if it was from stupidity or lack of diligence/care. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
That said, then, let’s let it rest. For most in or following this conversation, it is nearly 2am. I suggest sleep, and any further debate saved for tomorrow. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Good plan. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
A few points. I certainly did not spend much of yesterday reverting Ceoil on matters of fact. In these edits (written when Ceoil had been away from the article for almost an hour, and I had no idea whether he would return to it - there was no warning template on the article, for example), I made a few minor corrections for grammar and style - and also removed from the lead a list of claimed "most well known" recordings which was unsupported by the main text, unsourced, and in my view simply a personal opinion. Apart from that, and a minor disagreement over whether Smith was "commonly" or "sometimes" known as MES, I had absolutely no problem over Ceoil's edits, which clearly had produced a vastly improved article over the version I had been editing a week ago here. If I inadvertently removed "matters of fact", I would have been happy to discuss them. Secondly, it is quite untrue that I was agitating to have Ceoil blocked - my intervention at AN/I (where Ceoil's edits had been raised by others) was only to point out that the issues emerging at this article were not, as some had suggested, limited to Ceoil using a few rude words. It strikes me as absurd for Ceoil to say that he "do[es] not want my [i.e. his own] contributions to this page to remain", when I, and other editors, think they are, in general, excellent improvements to the article for which he should be thanked. But, other editors should of course be free to tweak them and discuss them, which is precisely what I have tried to do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The whole thing is locked down now; the man himself would be laughing. Everyone here is more than capable of working with others, so stop with the baiting - naming no names; you know who you are - and let’s get on with it. I think the longer lede is better, for starters, and I’m not sure why an easily-debated list of what is or isn’t “best known” is of any import whatsoever. It’s certainly not encyclopaedic, for whatever that’s worth. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The article looks fairly solid to me. I’m aware of but have not followed the conversations across multiple usertalk pages, so I hope I’m not treading on anyone here. I just want it to read better, though as always, my edits are only suggestions. Thank you, NRP, for getting me out of the autoblock. The changes I’d be proposing are just light cleanup, not worth bringing up here, and can easily wait until things are calmer. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The 'best known' list is problematic because it's going to be impossible to source and is inherently going to be original research. For this reason, and because some of the songs listed were clearly not, in my view, among his best known songs, I removed it. I explained why in my edit summary. As you say, it's not encyclopedic. Listing the most commercially successful original Fall songs (e.g. charting singles) would be more objective, perhaps along with those that have gained wider exposure via covers and usage in films and TV. My only other edit yesterday was to fix the image formatting in the infobox. I'm still at a loss to see why these edits triggered the reaction that they did. If there's a good reason for not fixing the infobox image, perhaps someone could explain why here? --Michig (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Several of the Fall's biggest chart hits were cover versions - which don't need to be highlighted in this article, though they could be at The Fall (band) - and only one or two of Smith's original songs, so far, have their own articles. If and when their notability can be established, and explained briefly in the main text of this article - or, if there is a clear consensus in reliable sources that they are Smith's most significant recordings - they should be included in the lead. But, not before then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
EC ate my last reply, but I agree that all “best known” lists are inherently subjective, cited or not. I think chart placing is best left out of this, both because of the cover versions issue and because of Smith’s disregard for the process in general. I genuinely think he’d be appalled to be summed up by whatever one or two songs of his sold the most. That’s all. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I have restored the image fix. If anyone has a problem with it please discuss here. --Michig (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
No issues here. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
But I don't think our opinions about whether or not MES would be "appalled" by what is written here should be a factor. We are an encyclopedia of record, not a fanzine! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

True, and I thought of that immediately after posting but let it stand. I want this to be the best article it can be, and I probably shouldn’t have mused in writing like that. I still think chart placement could in this instance be misleading, given that the covers went so much higher than most original compositions. I’ll support whatever is decided, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we hyphenate “long term”? I believe this is grammatically correct. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
<slow clap> Great work Michig. Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Smith’s opinion on other Manchester artists is better suited to the “Personality” section. It definitely doesn’t belong in the lede. I’ll integrate it when the article is free to edit, if no one disagreees. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if Dlohcierekim would umprotect the page, since the edit war has stopped, and—pace Ceoil—is unlikely to start again. And it seems as if useful dscussions are occuring here to move the article forward...? Just an "IMHO" of course  :) hup hup! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if you nee it back. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a stray bracket in the first line of the section titled The Fall, that needs to be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Removed. --Michig (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't laugh  ;) classic stuff though- "just like a Fall gig, some strange people there, and it kicked off" Ha!!! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
If Mark wasn't dead, he should probably have been blocked by the great unwashed wiki admins [2]. The horror. Maybe a push for article deletion, with snide assuniations on competence as to how to organise his own wake. Would seem par for the course here. How the fuck "Hip Priest" is no longer a well known Fall track, well I'll leave that to tossers to decide. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Best-known recordings

Perhaps we should revisit the question of whether to include, in the lead, a short list of his "best known" recordings - and, if so, what they might be. Currently, we mention "Totally Wired" and "Hit the North", which at the time that section was last edited were the only two of his songs (as opposed to cover versions) to have their own articles. There are now a few others with their own articles, and more should follow. Clearly, in Smith's case there's not much point in trying to follow conventional criteria of including most commercially successful songs and those most covered by other artists. If there is a list, I've no objection to including "Hip Priest", even though it wasn't a single and doesn't have its own article - it is mentioned in some obituaries, for instance. So, should there be a list at all, and, if so, what songs should be included? Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If we were just going by what we think then "Hip Priest" (via Silence of the Lambs/minor hit remake as "Big New Prinz"), "Hit the North" (one of the Fall's most successful original singles, and known more widely due to the Frank Sidebottom cover), and "Free Range" (the Fall's only original song to hit the top 40) would be in my list, but I don't think it's appropriate to list 'best known' songs in the article as there's no objective way of determining what these are, and they're all going to be Fall songs, so if they were to be mentioned anywhere it would be in the band article. --Michig (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
My only opinion is that it shouldn’t be in the lede. I think it’s too subjective by any standard, and also more suited to an article on the band rather than the man, even though here it’s largely the same thing. Put it in the career section, I’d say, and argue from there. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would also venture that this is not only subjective, and hence unencyclopaedic, but also something that can and will start stupid internet fights. Just a thought. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
So... can we take that as a consensus to remove the existing claim? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I am just one voice (ie, not a concensus), and while I agree with what is written, by my own argument it needs to go. “Best known recordings” can be duked out at The Fall page, and I still think it’s a complicated subject likely to destabilise the article, but that’s another topic for another time. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
via Silence of the Lambs - Michig stop digging you own hole. "no objective way of determining" - its that kind of received ignorance why we cant have nice things. Frankly that we even have to have this wanky navel gazing conversation is utterly ridiculous, and why under the current stewardship the article is doomed to rot in statis. I have already posted my openion several times during a rewrite , I'll get back to ye in the 300 odd years I suspect ye'll like to kick this rubbish "known more widely due to the Frank Sidebottom cover" around. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely all of his best known recordings were witth The Fall, and should be mentioned there? Right? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't address what should be in this article, and anyway several of the Fall's most successful (and probably best known) recordings were not written by Smith. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

FA

Can we do this? I’ll copy-edit, advise, and do whatever I can. Article is not yet there, but I think we can do it. Anyone on board need not reply, just edit, and we can hash it out here. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, barring resistance I’ll copy edit as I see fit. Content is not an issue save when I need clarification. I’d love some more input here, guys. Work away. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
And the lack of willingness to work together is read loud and clear, gentlemen. Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the subject matter naturally draws difficult people, like Smith himself... In any event I think a GA is a more achievable goal, anyone else have any thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m cool with that, though I think the standards there are malleable. I’d like nothing but the best here, but I can take one step at a time. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
What do you recommend as the next step? I’m all ears, and open to recommendations here. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_E._Smith/Archive_1&oldid=1245361429"