Talk:The Jam

Re:

RE: Weller insisted that he was merely trying to irk "trendy left-wingers" and, still in 1977, bemoaned how the group had garnered the "Conservative" label and expressed disgust with Margaret Thatcher. Have we got a source for this, please? Conch Shell 13:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't have a exact source for that, but the following quote is from the 84-page book 'The Jam - Direction, Reaction, Creation' that came with the cd boxset of the same name. in the essay for cd1 by pat gilbert [dated: jan 1997] [and copyrighted to him/her obviously]:

Comment

To promote the album, The Jam headed out to support The Clash's 'White Riot' tour in early May [1977 - r7], though friction between the group and Clash manager Bernie Rhodes caused them to pull out after just a handful of dates. When an interview appeared a few days later in which Weller said The Jam would be voting Conservative at the next election, Strummer and co vented their spleen by telegraphing the group's office with the infamous message: "Maggie wants you for target practice".

Though Weller's comments had been primarily designed to wind up "punk's trendy left-wingers", the notion that The Jam were cartoon Tories wasn't exactly challenged when, a month later, the group announced some celebratory gigs for the Queen's Silver Jubilee.

Weller was clearly showing a certain degree of political naivety here, but there was also a strong sense that he was desperately trying to distance himself from the 'anarchy crowd', while cocking a snook a the punk theatre of 'God Save the Queen'. To him, music wasn't about art-terrorism; it was about classic songwriting and brutally honest sentiments.

It was only when, in the following weeks, The Jam were accused of aligning themselves with the far-right National Front, that some of the Jubilee gigs were abandoned and the Union Flags that bedecked the group's amps were quietly folded away.

that cover it?

R7 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How did the author know that Weller's comments had been "designed to wind up punk's trendy left-wingers?" I was a bit suspicious of a quote that claimed Weller had contempt for Thatcher in 1977 when she didn't come to power until 1979. At the time many people thought she was preferable to the incompetent James Callaghan. Conch Shell 09:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

See the above excerpt by R7 (thanks!) It's from the liner notes to the Direction Reaction Creation box. The editors of those notes were all quite close to the group, and that was a direct quote. As for the 1977 quote on how he hated Thatcher, I can't find that blasted source now, but I know I remember reading it on a web page of Paul Weller quotes that listed precise sources. I also remember that same page having a 1990's quote from him on how he'd never listen to a band like R.E.M., because if he wanted to listen to music, he'd listen to music with balls. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact quotes and Google isn't helping me out on this one. Anyone happen to know where that webpage is? It was some unofficial Paul Weller compendium. StarryEyes 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I can't confirm or deny what Weller said about hating Thatcher in 1977, I do remember that Thatcher was already a well known UK political figure by this year, and held in wide dislike by many. Before coming to power she was often refered to a "Milk Snatcher Thatcher" due to being responsible for, amongst other things, ending the long standing practice of giving free milk to school children each day. I do also clearly remember Weller saying the thing about voting Tory, whcih put me off the jam for years after... quercus robur 13:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ps, am I alone in thinking that Weller's current single sounds like a slowed down Chas n dave out-take???

Yes - I remember Thatcher snatching my milk as well. She seemed to have some pretty good PR in the late 70's and managed to convince people that she was just an ordinary Lincolnshire housewife who had grown up above her father's corner shop and gone on to 'better' things. Weller's pro-Tory statements seemed fairly convincing at the time ("The Queen works much harder than you or I" (etc)). I think we ought to take them as genuine expressions of sentiment unless we can find a reliable source that states otherwise. Conch Shell 10:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought it worth pointing out that Weller's (later) work with the Style Council is distinctly political, and distinctly anti-Thatcherite (e.g. "A Stone's Throw Away"). Obviously his approach to music and probably his political views had changed, but it seems unlikely that he was ever a confirmed Conservative.

Weller made no secret of the fact that he 'got socialism' in the late 70's. Before then he was a Tory, not that there is anything wrong with that. Aynuk N. Ayli 09:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Foxton's input

Not wishing to take away anything from Bruce, but can anyone confirm his vocal and/ or creative input? Almost all Jam tracks are credited to Weller only, and the exceptions suggest the rest of the band's influence is unusual. Demo versions also seem to be Weller alone ("Thick as Thieves", for example). I'm also not sure on the vocal harmonies thing; many songs sound like Weller overdubbing. I don't know myself, just noting my suspicions for accuracy's sake.

A whole lot of b-sides, especially earlier on, were written by him alone. As for vocals, I'm fairly sure he has lead on Smithers-Jones and trades off with Weller on David Watts. Some songs you can clearly hear him in the background, names of which escape me at the moment. In live performances at least, his mouth was definitely moving.--TheUniversal 15:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a 7" single of "Funeral Pyre" that gives the songwriting credit only to Paul Weller. Yet this entry and the entry for Bruce Foxton says that "Funeral Pyre" is a Weller-Foxton-Buckler colloboration. I was going to edit the page to reflect this, but Allmusic also gives the song writing credit to Weller-Foxton-Buckler. Any know anything else about this [[[User:Tallbuildings|Tallbuildings]] 20:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

I think the 'Greatest Hits' packaging, credits the lyrics to 'Weller' and the Music to 'The Jam' Bevo74 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know Bruce Foxton wrote Lisa Radley. many years I had the physical CD and I think it is the only song he wrote on his own. I actually bought both his woeful solo releases but that is due to my addiction to all Jam items since BustOut

A2. How can you honestly 'bemoan' Foxton and Bucklers influence on the Jam's sound. Both had a massive part to play and the romoval of either would have made the Jam stagnant. Foxton has a number of credits on both album and singles - Smither Joness (on which he also had lead vocals as he did on David Watts)/ News of The World/ the Combine. I would also add there are joint band credits on Circus (The Gift) Funeral Pyre - You need to revisit the LP's and singles. In my opinion the musicianship of Foxton and Buckler complimented and formed the back bone of the Jam's sound. We often forget that there were three members of the Jam and two of them weren't Paul Weller! (wellerite) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.17.167 (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Naa, isn't the demo of Liza Radley Weller singing on his own?

He wrote The Circus, News of the World and Smithers-Jones. According to our story Bruce and Rick often wrote, bassline and drum patterns but were not credited except on Funeral Pyre. Ram4eva 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Liza Radley" was written by Weller. Foxton does play accordian on the song. "Smithers-Jones" is credited to Foxton but Weller wrote and sang the final verse. Foxton did provide harmony vocals throughout The Jam's career. --J2 00:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and references tags

This needs a bit of work. At the moment it reads like it was written by fans. For example:

"Bassist Bruce Foxton made up for the group’s lack of a second guitarist by carrying much of the melody in his distinctive playing, a confluence of the power of John Entwistle with the speed and melodicism of Paul McCartney. His instantly memorable basslines were the foundation of many of the group’s songs..."

Now, I liked The Jam, so I would slightly tent to agree with that statement. But we aren't supposed to be stating our own opinions here. We would need a quote or a ref from a verifiable souce. That's just one example. I'll see what I can do myself too of course.--Guinnog 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've improved this by taking out the fan nonsense. But problems remain.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.144.18 (talk • contribs)

Great edits. I'll take down the tags. --Guinnog 09:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What's Entertainment?

Someone swiped (should I say 'nicked' for the Brits?) my copy of 'Dig the New Breed' 20 years ago, but I clearly remember Weller's rambling liner notes saying something like "Coming home pissed from the pub and writing 'That's Entertainment' in five minutes." The article says he came home from holiday and wrote it. Is there a source for that?

From "The Jam - A History, 77-82" (no ISBN anywhere to be seen!?) comes the following: 'That's Entertainment', for example, came about after a night on the booze. "I wrote that," Weller reveals, "after coming back from the pub drunk with beery euphoria. I wrote seven verses, though I cut one of them the next day. The whole thing took about ten minutes because the words just rolled off my pen." CiaranG 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How can the writer(s) of this article possibly talk about a divergence from psychedelic influences when the B side of Funeral Pyre was a cover of about the Who's only serious attempt at psychedelia apart from Magic Bus - Disguises? Also - Funeral Pyre is about book burning, about fascism (the video at the time carried the famous footage of Brown-Shirts burning books), not about "Rick Buckler's drumming". What part of the line "their mad eyes bulged their flushed faces said 'the week get crushed as the strong grow stronger'" are we not understanding here? Eton Rifles isn't about one particular incident - "what chance have you got against a tie and a crest?" - goes a little deeper than that. The song Absolute Beginners is a reference and a salute to what the book said about youth and music - its not about the book at all.

Also "non-LP single" is a gross understatement. Record companies hated the fact that bands wanted to do that at the time, and bands had to insist on it. Weller was fuming that people were putting out exports of more than one single from an album (ie backdoor record company import singles), when the agreement was "one single per album".

I personally think this article doesn't begin to understand and articulate The Jam.

Re:Infobox: It's The Jam - not "FROM the Jam"

A user changed the members of the Jam to those of the "From the Jam featuring Rick Buckler and Bruce Foxton" touring group, left Paul Weller as a mere "former member," labeled that as a minor edit (!), and it stayed that way for over a month. This is an article about The Jam, not "From the Jam." The whole point of that name is to slyly get by the legal fact that it isn't the same band. The "2007 Revival" section of the article covers the "reunion" tour; if more information is desired, it should be in a new article about From the Jam. (It should be no different from the handling of The Cars versus The New Cars. --emw 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Replying to this very old comment to agree that From the Jam should have its own article, and its list of personnel etc should be moved there. Before moving the information to a separate From the Jam article, checking if there are any objections to doing that? IndigoBeach (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do it. Rick Buckler's pension plan isn't relevant here. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've used the original From the Jam redirect page to create the From the Jam article, and have moved all relevant information there. Looks like the software has automatically created a new redirect page, so I've tagged it for speedy deletion. IndigoBeach (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NME TheJam.jpg

Image:NME TheJam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Man in the corner shop

How can the writer(s) of this article possibly talk about a divergence from psychedelic influences when the B side of Funeral Pyre was a cover of about the Who's only serious attempt at psychedelia apart from Magic Bus - Disguises? Also - Funeral Pyre is about book burning, about fascism (the video at the time carried the famous footage of Brown-Shirts burning books http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFrrNhsGZp4), not about "Rick Buckler's drumming". What part of the line "their mad eyes bulged their flushed faces said 'the week get crushed as the strong grow stronger'" are we not understanding here? Eton Rifles isn't about one particular incident - "what chance have you got against a tie and a crest?" - goes a little deeper than that. The song Absolute Beginners is a reference and a salute to what the book said about youth and music - its not a direct reference to the book at all.

Also "non-LP single" is a gross understatement. Record companies hated the fact that bands wanted to do that at the time, and bands had to insist on it. Weller was fuming that people were putting out exports of more than one single from an album (ie backdoor record company import singles), when the agreement with the record company was "one single per album".

Let's think about being young, and working class in England, aspiring to a better 'lifestyle', a more sophisticated way of thinking, how much that left you on the outside amongst your own, the people you were brought up with, the people you loved. The Clash, The Sex Pistols, no-one articulated that in the way Saturdays Kids, When You're Young, Strange Town, Away from the Numbers, Running on the Spot, Town Called Malice and Going Underground did.

I personally think this article doesn't begin to understand and articulate The Jam.

Celeryness (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

TOTP

re the jam playing 2 songs on top of the pops, i don't believe they were the first band since the beatles to do this as i recall slade being at no.1 a few years before & after playing their latest chart-topper playing out the show with the b-side. however, i can't recall the songs in question for sure, although i have a feeling it may be the "cum on feel the noize" single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.228.33 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Import Singles

Can someone clarify the bit in the first paragraph about "best-selling import singles of all time in the UK" ? Seeing as how this is a British band, I don't understand why their singles would be considered imports in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenab (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Singles released in countries other than the UK which were not released in Britain by this UK band at the time, but being released in other countries, they charted in the UK singles chart through UK sales of imports (such as 'That's Entertainment' , having been released in Germany, the song charted in the UK from the number of single sales imported).--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Jam were an English punk, post-punk, mod revival band ?????

This is a terrible opening sentence, which looks like it has been written by a committee. And, like most things down by committee, they've made a right horse's arse of it.

Firstly, The Jam were not a punk band, though they are often lumped in with them. Weller has on many occasions expressed his dislike for punk, and, even back in 1977, was reluctant to be grouped in with the punk groups. The Jam's musical and fashion sensibilities always had much more in common with the mod scene than their punk contemporaries.

Secondly, how can they be post-punk and punk at the same time? "Post-punk" is a meaningless term anyway. I have never heard any musician describe their band as a "post-punk" band. Even f@cking Green Day insist they are a "punk" band, rather than a "post-post-post-post-punk band" (though "corporate rock" would be a more accurate definition.)

Thirdly "mod-revival??" I just checked what that meant exactly, and it seems to be mainly about aging mods getting together at scooter meets. What's with the term "revival"? If you are a mod, you are a mod.

In my opinion, The Jam were mods. I'd accept New Wave, or even rock, but "The Jam were an English punk, post-punk, mod revival band" is terrible. You might as well just shove folk and glam in there too and be done with it.. Can we change this? --Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

@ExRat This comment, from over ten years ago, is quite right. The Jam were always mods (or "mod revival", as Wikipedia would have it), first and foremost, above and before anything else. Besides the mod association, their primary affiliation was with the New Wave. This is attested to by primary and secondary sources alike; by contemporary interviews of Weller and music journalism pieces from 1977, as well as by modern biographies and retrospectives. Though they were often grouped with punk, this was rejected by the band themselves and by other, truly punk rock bands. Who do you think The Clash had in mind with the lyric "They got Burton suits, ha, you think it’s funny / Turning rebellion into money"? Rather ironically considering these lyrics, your point that "They emerged from the punk scene, morphed quickly into other styles and genres" is quite accurate, but not for The Jam. It was The Clash who were initially punk rock, in its purest form, before evolving within a few years into the more varied New Wave of London Calling and Sandinista!.

As for your other point, that the order of infobox genres isn't a matter of which is more correct, but rather the chronological development of a particular artist, I think I've seen enough pages to say otherwise. To give just a couple of examples, the page for Scritti Politti has "Pop" listed first in the infobox, before "new wave", even though the citation for the latter says that they began in 1978 "originally as an artsy new wave combo." No doubt, the infobox is ordered as it is because the band are far more well-known for their work as an 80s pop group than as an artsy new wave combo. The page for Thompson Twins, too, says that they were "initially a new wave group" in the late 70s before achieving greater popularity with a "more mainstream pop sound" in the 80s, and accordingly "Pop" is listed before "new wave" in the infobox. So even if one accepts that The Jam were initially punks (which I don't), since the bulk and breadth of their work came when they were "British New Wave at its most quintessential and successful", that genre should be listed ahead of punk. Punk rock can still go in the infobox, in recognition of the sources who have often lumped them in with it, but it should not be listed first. I will now revert your edit and restore the page; if you still wish to discuss this, I would welcome a response and a third opinion to help us avoid an edit war and reach consensus or compromise. Janglyguitars (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That comment, from over ten years ago, is completely and wholly that editor's own WP:POV. They listed no sources, no references, just flat out gave an opinion. Much (most) of your argument is the same – your opinion. Your own classification. As I stated before, I can find a multitude of references describing them as a punk band. I certainly don't disagree that they were more than a punk band and quickly evolved and incorporated many styles into their sound. I absolutely don't disagree that they were also labelled a new wave and a mod band and the references give credence to both. Many punk and punk-affiliated bands of the era were slapped with the "new wave" label, as the terms "punk" and "new wave" were initially interchangeable (your own reference states as much). The fact that they began as a punk band (they did, attested to in multiple references, not merely my opinion) and came to prominence during the late 1970s British punk era (again, multiple references), seems to be some personal issue for you. I see from your talk page, you have a history of edit warring, changing genres with no references based on your opinion, removing references, and have even been blocked from editing the synth-pop page. By all means, have a third opinion come in. ExRat (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

So, maybe not the cited third opinion process, but I'll offer a third opinion as someone who has spent hundreds of hours over decades listening to the Jam (and the Clash, Pistols, etc.). Janglyguitars mostly has the better argument here. Firstly, no one is questioning what genres should be in the infobox, just the order. ExRat seems to want punk rock listed first, on the belief that they were originally a punk rock band, while Janglyguitars argues that the Jam were primarily a mod or mod revival band so that should be listed first. The Jam were a mod revival band before that term existed and before punk even happened and just got lumped into punk rock (mistakenly, I'd argue) circa 1977 because that was happening around them and critics didn't otherwise have a category to put them in. They were always primarily a mod revival band, if a genre is needed. There's no denying that there are many references to them as being punk, but really that categorization trailed off not because the band changed but because critical understanding of the band changed. That said, I'd go ahead and leave in the references supporting punk rock as a genre, once moving mod revival back to the first listed genre and punk as the third. (It occurs to me that my opinion might be shaped by being a teenage American punk in the '80s, as the Jam never sounded like anything happening in American punk. British miles may vary.) CAVincent (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, please don't dismiss talk page comments simply because they express a point of view by editors not bringing citations to the talk page. That's kind of what talk pages are for, and clearly no one in this discussion is coming from some wholly uninformed position. CAVincent (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I dismissed the talk page comments from the editor from ten years ago, as they are wholly Original Research. You do, in fact, need citations for material to be included in articles in order to meet WP:VERIFY. Both the editor from ten years ago, as well as yourself, have offered no references and merely your opinions. Your argument of "I listen to the Jam a lot" is WP:OR and not at all how Wikipedia works. See WP:IKNOW. As an editor who has been on Wikipedia for as long as you have, you should be aware of that. Even Janglyguitars, as a relatively new editor, seems to be aware that references are needed for material to be included in articles and not merely a random opinion. ExRat (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think I'm editing articles in violation of WP policies, please do call me out. However, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY don't preclude offering opinions on a talk page without bringing WP:RS citations along, and it isn't usually expected that editors research their talk page comments before making them. I haven't made any edits to this article relevant to this conversation and, as noted, we seem to all be in agreement as to what genres belong in the infobox. As best I can tell, this whole discussion comes down firstly to whether the first genre listed in the infobox should be primary or original. I searched a bit but couldn't even find a WP essay on the question. I suppose there could be a secondary question of what the Jam's primary or original genres were, which is as least something that might be subject to verification. For what it's worth, I merely noted my familiarity with the band to indicate that I wasn't just now wandering into a discussion that I had never heard before. I'm aware that this doesn't mean that my opinions should trump WP policy. CAVincent (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that there are many sources which explicitly describe The Jam as not punk, or describe them as new wave in opposition to punk, while I have never read any sources that deny or dispute that they were a mod or New Wave band. I'm not disputing that references exist describing the band as punk and as having emerged during the late 70s punk/new wave era; what I am disputing is that this is a better descriptor for the band than New Wave or Mod revival. You criticize me for expressing my opinion here but, as @CAVincent points out, that is precisely the point of a talk page. Nevertheless, in order to further satisfy you, I've gathered several more sources distinguishing the band from punk (besides the ones I already provided on the main page as citations for "new wave"):

"Sounds, March 5, 1977, in which Jam leader Paul Weller explains that the Jam is not a punk band, but agrees to the new wave label."

[quoting Weller] "“Punk rock is a big flashy sign that sells commodities whereas ‘new wave’ is an attitude.” He then goes on to detail out his vision for the attitude of ‘new wave’ suggesting it represents a disenfranchised youth who have spent too long unrecognised."

"In the April 23 edition of Melody Maker, Brian Harrigan was one of the first journalists to scrutinise them in fine detail. "The Jam are the first band to make sense, for me, of the distinction between new wave and punk," he wrote. "The common denominator is the youth of its exponents, the simplicity and energy of the music, and a burning enthusiasm. The Jam underline this stance by coming on as Mods."

"After making their bids for punk legitimacy on their first two albums, the Jam fully moved on to the sixties-indebted power-pop sound that would fully convince the punks that the Jam was never one of them."

"The Jam were not Punks, they were Mods. They just happened to arrive on the scene when Punk Rock had just taken off in 1976."

"And of course The Jam were never really a punk band anyway. They had nothing to do with punk's 1976 year zero attitude ... The band's attire standing in strict contrast to the quickly standardised punk look of garish colours, ripped and torn t-shirts held together by safety pins and so on. The Jam were neatly dressed in tailored sixties style suits and ties. Whilst many second division punk bands reveled in the abject and the moronic, The Jam looked smart and acted smart."

"I never considered The Jam to be a punk band anyway; I just thought they were New Wave."

As for my own past editing, I acknowledge that I've made mistakes. That, however, does not prevent me from being in the right in this specific case, nor does it lessen my arguments or sources. @CAVincent has given an informed third opinion, and agrees with my position. Accordingly, I will revert and restore the page; if you decide to revert it back, then it is you who has chosen to engage in an edit war, not me. Janglyguitars (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

CAVincent has, in fact, not given an "informed opinion". They have given an opinion, yes; a fully WP:OR one (see above) devoid of any sort of citations. You have also removed references from the article with no reasoning. Still appreciate an actual third opinion you offered. ExRat (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Break up

The article in general is reads like a cobbled together narrative constructed from old NME reports. Worse still it lacks any attempt to explain why Weller folded the group. It the section on the dissolution says they got a #1 record then that was it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.226.95 (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Jam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124224400/http://www.noblepr.co.uk:80/Press_Releases/live_nation/from_the_jam.htm to http://www.noblepr.co.uk/Press_Releases/live_nation/from_the_jam.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Jam. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6596151/thats_entertainment

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Jam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816015007/https://thejam.org.uk/gigs.html to http://www.thejam.org.uk/gigs.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_93687578

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Did Weller play bass when Brookes was in the line-up?

The first "Formation" paragraph has him playing guitar and then later switching from bass to guitar. Did he switch from guitar to bass and back again or is the first sentence in error? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Immigrant laborer. He initially played bass (a Hofner Violin bass like the one Paul McCartney plays). At the time Brookes was lead guitarist and Waller rhythm guitarist. After Dave Waller left the band, Bruce was brought in, initially as the rhythm guitarist. He accidentally broke the Hofner bass after a gig one night, and Paul basically later told him he was going to be the bassist and Paul was going to play guitar.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Jam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210234031/http://canopicjar.com/Canopic9/hoekstra.html to http://canopicjar.com/Canopic9/hoekstra.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312033553/http://underground-network.de/weller.html to http://underground-network.de/weller.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research / Citations needed

Someone has tagged a number of sentences with "Citation needed" on this article and on Paul Weller.

I've added the "Original research" banner on this article until that situation improves. When this article is more complete, I believe several sections of the Paul Weller article can have their own tags removed and can replicate the reliable information presented here.

I'm going to add "Original research" to that whole article too, as it's not just the Jam sections that need work. But people might want to work on those two (and maybe more) articles in tandem.

Thanks!

Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the Original Research banner today - since it was put on, editors have added citations & made edits for all "citation needed" tags in this article at the time the banner was added. IndigoBeach (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)