Talk:Blur (band)

New album?

Two recent lists of "autumn album releases" in swedish newspapers have claimed that Blur's releasing a new album this autumn. Does anyone know were this rumor comes from? Stupid swedish media...Slipzen (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Former members

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Past_members and see that no one should be listed as a current member of a defunct band. Tom Green (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the article

The recent changes being championed by 70.21.58.96 are largely unnecessary detail:

• There's no need to mention the number of studio albums they released (or highlight the #1 UK singles) in this lead; they're more suitable for the band's discography article lead. And Fugazi didn't have that big an impact on the band. And we're only mentioning the members' primary instruments in the lead.
• I'm the primary contributor to this article and I have found no source that refers to the album cover painted by Coxon as a sign of "different Blur members were going their own directions, maybe putting strains on group." So it simply doesn't belong esp. without context as to why its being mentioned. indopug (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're right on the Fugazi thing. It turns out that Pavement was the most frequently mentioned influence in articles on the self-titled album, probably because Pavement was trendier at the time, even though Coxon was a fan of Fugazi and other bands as well. So the Fugazi mention can be deleted, sorry for adding it. (I would argue that Pavement didn't have that big an impact on the band either, at least not that you can actually hear on the album, but anyway... it's what the media did say, so we have sources for it.)

I also didn't give the best reason to keep the information about Coxon doing the artwork- you're right there's no evidence it put strains on the group, but I think it's important to note (in a general way) the different contributions of different band members, esp. toward the end when we know that different members were looking to go in their own directions (not necessarily fighting, just each becoming more independent). So 13 was Damon's most personal album as far as songwriting (as the section notes, and I think was good to mention in the intro, since it's known for that as much as the gospel/electronica) and an album where Graham was really allowed to drive the musical style (as the section notes), it's also important to mention in the 13 section that Coffee & TV was the first single where Graham sang lead vocals (this was not mentioned before my edits) and it's not a bad idea to mention that he designed the album cover (as someone else had already put in, and you deleted), not to argue especially in favour of Graham or something, but to point out something which sets that album apart from the ones that came before. I understand maybe talking about artwork is too specific for the Blur article and might fit better in the 13 article, but at least the fact Coxon sang one of the singles, Coffee & TV, is significant for the Blur article.

Graham really must also be listed as an occasional lead singer in the lead paragraph, and probably the other members' backing vocals deserve mention as well, otherwise it's inaccurate. I've worked on featured articles such as Radiohead, and they mention exactly which members sing backing vocals. With Blur of course most (if not all?) members do sing at times, but Graham deserves mention in the lead because he's the only member besides Damon to sing on a single. So someone listens to only The Best of Blur and they do hear a song that Graham, not Damon, sings. Therefore it's right to mention him.

Finally I want to defend my changes to the lead paragraph. It's nice if you have worked a lot on the article, but that does NOT entitle you to prevent anyone else from making positive changes to it and allowing it to evolve. I worked a lot (under a real username) on plenty of articles and they have often been changed against my will. But if only one person (i.e. me or you) wants to revert changes to an article we did a lot of work on, that's not enough. After all lots of other Wikipedians did a lot of work on this article too, I'm sure. One article I've worked a lot on, Radiohead, is featured. This one is not anywhere close, so this article is one which can always use more positive contributions and improvements, instead of being locked into the state it was in when you finished your edits. Ok, so anyway, from my work on other featured music articles I've noticed there's a consensus that it's good to mention the number of releases of the band right up front. Not number of live albums, compilations, music videos etc., you're right that technical stuff fits better on a discography page. But if someone has no idea who/what Blur is, I think it does help to begin the encyclopedia article mentioning that they have done x number of albums and x singles, particularly to mention the biggest chart hits among the singles, which is an objective fact. For, say, Radiohead, we don't mention the number of singles in the lead. That's because their singles, even Creep, never had the commercial success of Blur's, and Radiohead are known more for albums. But any band like Blur that has had #1 singles in their native country should mention this fact in the lead- Blur are known both for hit singles and hit albums. Even if this was NOT the case, this article already mentions "Song 2" in the lead, which was not even a #1 single, and is only their most recognizeable song in the USA, not their own country. If you think that "Country House" and "Beetlebum" shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, I think we would also need to delete the mention of "Song 2," which even in America was not a HUGE hit (only modern rock radio), whereas Country House and Beetlebum were HUGE (#1 pop) hits in Britain. Check out other featured articles, you'll see that if an artist has had #1 singles, unless they've had a ridiculous number of them (Beatles, Michael Jackson etc), the names of their hits tend to be mentioned in the lead. Also, in addition to being a #1 hit, Beetlebum is seen by the band themselves and most fans and critics as a highlight of their career. Therefore it fits well to mention in the lead.

One other thing: if you didn't notice, part of the changes I made were to shorten unnecessary wording in the lead which talked about "The Battle of Britpop." The actual phrase, "The Battle of Britpop" is not that widely known, and is not the universal way a Blur (or an Oasis) fan would refer to this event. It's the title of the article on the feud between Blur and Oasis, only because it's a convenient title for the subject. But instead of merntioning "Britpop" and then a few words later, saying "The Battle of Britpop", it's more appropriate just to link "famous chart battle with rival band Oasis" to the Battle of Britpop article. Otherwise the intro is devoting too many words to this so-called battle, as compared with the rest of Blur's career. It's very unimportant that a reader who wants to find out about Blur in two or three short paragraphs learn the uncommon phrase "The Battle of Britpop". Really more notable to mention Country House + Beetlebum.

Whatever though, just revert again if you want.

Edit: there are also errors in the intro as it exists which my version fixed. "Your" intro implies that Blur became successful in the US as a result of Song 2. In fact this is wrong- Song 2 was commercially successful, but Blur did not remain successful in America for long after the song, so I changed it to say "found brief success" (they've always had a cult of US alternative fans- but as far as the mainstream, they are seen as a one-hit wonder). On the other hand, "your" intro also makes it sound like until "Song 2", Blur were ONLY successful in the UK. This is not true either. They were a popular band in various places, not only the UK, and they had several international hits before the self-titled album. They just didn't crack America. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I own the article or anything, just that your edits sometimes didn't flow perfectly with the prose around it.

• I really don't see the point of mentioning the studio albums and #1 singles up front. Why? For one it breaks up the chronological flow of the lead (which I like to mirror the article). The number of studio albums is also rather redundant to "recording of their seventh album Think Tank". As for the #1 singles, well, I plan to expand the lead into three paragraphs, so maybe then I can include their mention in the lead chronologically. To repeat, I just kinda don't like summarising sentences as they interrupt chronological flow. Also "your" lead devotes an entire para to one album, arguably to their least important one too, Think Tank. What's the point of that?
• As for the [[Battle of Britpop|chart battle]] link, such "Easter egg" links are discouraged as they confuse the new user. I've seen the issue raised on a number of FACs.
• "Song 2" is their most recognisable song worldwide; "Beetlebum", not so much. Its the first Blur song most non-British people hear. Besides--"is only their most recognizeable song in the USA, not their own country", why the British bias?
• Why remove mention of Pavement in the lead? All reviews/articles from the Blur-era contain overwhelming mention of that band.
• As for "Backing vocals" for all the band-members, that's kinda unnecessary and would make that sentence (the second in the article) very long and clunky to read. I will add the "Coffee & TV" vocals bit though. That band-members+instruments line is to get the idea of a very very basic who-does-what in the band.
• "American album", while that's a nice quote, I'd rather remove it for now as the rest of sources in the Blur paragraph are from 1997, and it just sits a little oddly.

While you may believe that "This one is not anywhere close", most of the edits you've are just matters of preference. Sure Radiohead is a great article, but it isn't necessarily the model for all band articles. I'm actually looking at Smashing Pumpkins and R.E.M. for ideas on how to go about. indopug (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New words

Blur are an English alternative rock band that formed in London in 1989. The four members of the band are singer Damon Albarn, guitarist Graham Coxon, bassist Alex James and drummer Dave Rowntree. Blur's debut album Leisure (1991) incorporated the sounds of Madchester and shoegazing. Following a stylistic change—influenced by English guitar pop groups such as The Kinks, The Beatles and XTC—Blur released the Modern Life Is Rubbish (1993), Parklife (1994) and The Great Escape (1995) albums. The band found mass success in the UK, while Blur's famous chart battle with rival British band Oasis helped to popularise the Britpop genre around the world.

In recording their follow-up, Blur (1997), the band underwent another reinvention, influenced by the lo-fi style of American indie rock bands such as Pavement. "Song 2", one of the album's singles, became Blur's first and only radio hit in the US. The last album featuring Blur's original lineup, 13 (1999) found the band members experimenting with electronic music and gospel music, as Albarn wrote more personal lyrics. In May 2002, Coxon left Blur during the recording of their seventh album Think Tank (2003). Containing electronic sounds and more minimal guitar work, the album was marked by Albarn's growing interest in hip hop and African music. Since a 2003 tour without Coxon, Blur have done no studio work or touring as a band, as members have engaged in other projects. Blur confirmed in late 2008 that the band will reunite in 2009 with Coxon back in the fold.

versus old (wordier) wording:

Blur are an English alternative rock band that formed in London in 1989. The four members of the band are vocalist Damon Albarn, guitarist Graham Coxon, bassist Alex James and drummer Dave Rowntree. Blur's debut album Leisure (1991) incorporated the sounds of Madchester and shoegazing. Following a stylistic change in 1992—influenced by English guitar groups such as The Kinks, The Beatles and XTC—Blur released Modern Life Is Rubbish (1993), Parklife (1994) and The Great Escape (1995). As a result, the band helped to popularise the Britpop genre and achieved mass popularity in the UK, aided by a famous chart battle with rival band Oasis dubbed "The Battle of Britpop".

By the late 1990s, with the release of Blur (1997), the band underwent another reinvention, influenced by the lo-fi style of American indie rock bands such as Pavement; in the process, Blur finally gained mainstream success in the US with the single, "Song 2". The last album featuring the band's original lineup, 13 (1999) found Blur experimenting with electronic music and gospel music, as Albarn wrote more personal lyrics. In May 2002, Coxon left Blur during the recording of their seventh album Think Tank (2003). Containing electronic sounds and simpler guitar playing, the album was marked by Albarn's growing interest in hip hop and African music. Since their 2003 tour, Blur have done no studio work or touring as a band, and members have engaged in other projects. Although they long maintained that they had no concrete plans of working together, Blur have confirmed they will be reuniting in 2009 with Coxon back in the fold.

getting started

as briefly outlined by hotpress this week the band was first written about by leo finlay. the contributions of this deceased man were invaluable to the bands success over the years. some claim that blur would not be where they are today without leo finlay. certainly he was the first person to tell them to change their name from seymour. finlays help was key to blurs success after he first saw them play in a pub. he should be mentioned in this article as he was offered to become the bands manager because of his expert guidance. over the years he became good frinds with damon albarn and also helped kick start the careers of the spice girls and the soltons of ping fc. the band even played at his wedding. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blur_(band)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safari102 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

13

Can we mention that the album's cover of 13 is designed by Coxon? Because someone keeps reverting and I just don't know fucking why those someones do it. I might tell something spicy but I will refrain. It's just a fact that I don't see why can't be mentioned on the page. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. Its too much detail for this article—which tries to give a brief overview of twenty years of a band's history— and more suited for the 13 article. indopug (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is just a short sentence. "The album's cover is designed by Coxon." I put "Being gifted artist, the album's cover was designed by Coxon." Slightly longer, but it's not a whole fucking paragraph. It is short and even the longer version doesn't seem long at all. It would be long if dabbled into something else. But long - come on give me a break! It is short and I don't see any reason why it can't be mentioned in the article beside your stubborness. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary detail for the band article, and the phrasing "Being gifted artist, the album's cover was designed by Coxon" pushes POV boundaries. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. It is necessary and not that complicated for the band. It is just a fucking sentence. "The album's cover was also designed by Coxon". That's all, nothing more, nothing less. It is good and it should be pointed out. It isn't unnecessary. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"It is good and it should be pointed out" is not a valid reason to include mention of it. What importance does it have to the band's history as a whole? Why mention that album's cover and not Modern Life Is Rubbish or Parklife? Details about album covers are primarily reserved for the album articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "gifted" part isn't needed, but otherwise Mad Hatter brought up a great point here- though I've argued with him on the Radiohead pages. Editors of Blur article, particularly Indopug, seem to be ridiculously averse to *ANY* change to the page, which is odd since (unlike Radiohead, e.g.) this article is NOT featured nor even rated good, and would seem like maybe it could get there with some more edits from more people. Most people, including me, simply gave up in the past, because no matter how we justify our edits, Indopug instantly reverts them. Mention of Coxon's 13 album cover is just one example, and in fact, before this "gifted" wording several editors tried to add it to the article with a shorter, more neutral phrase. The fact is not trivia- it's notable for showing the varied contributions made by different band members on their final album as a foursome. Some other notable facts such as Coxon's vocal contribution on the album's single Coffee & TV, were also deleted by Indopug and only reinstated after threats of an edit war. Attempts to make the introduction more concise and easier to read while retaining the same information, were also reverted, multiple times. (I just tried again, we'll see how it plays out.) It seems like there is no particular rhyme or reason to the reversions. Cleaning up in various sections also tends to be reverted by Indopug, even if it shortens unneeded words and adds needed sources to the text! I think other editors need to watch this page to make sure any single editor is not exerting disproportionate control over its content and preventing anyone else from making positive contributions. Last time I tried to improve a section, I was reverted by Indopug, with the explanation that he himself was planning a massive overhaul of that section, so meanwhile others' work was unneeded. Well that was several months ago and I don't see his massive overhaul. Meanwhile we have an article on a very notable subject which will only be more notable in the coming year, due to the reunion, and which should get to featured with a little work from a lot of people. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Years active"

Now that the band have confirmed reunion plans, there's bound to be many differing opinions about the infobox "years_active" tab. I personally think it should be "1989-present" since Blur never officially split;lso, we have to keep in mind that the info isn't too convoluted. Opinions? Suggestions? indopug (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The infobox in the Jane's Addiction and The Verve articles have gaps in 'years active' and I think it's fair enough. Although Damon never said the band had officially split (as far as I can tell), Blur were not active between 2004 and 2008 so I think "1989-present" is misleading. Cavie78 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an easy way around this. Under "1989-present" there can be something in subscript saying something along the lines of "2004-2008 (hiatus)". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is too complicated. I support the gap that says "1989-2003, 2008-present". It really is misleading. That's my opinion, but I won't revert or edit. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But how do we know for certain what they were up to in their spare time? And how does this differ from U2 who are on the verge of releasing their first album in five years? Or what about Guns N' Roses and Chinese Democracy? They might have been recording but who is to say that Blur were absolutely doing nothing in the time they've been away? According to our article for Gorillaz, they preceded this so-called split, with their first album being released in 2001, so I don't see how that could be offered as an excuse. They were still going when Graham Coxon began his solo career - he had released three albums by his own departure in 2002, which itself precedes the hiatus by one calendar year. And The Good, the Bad & the Queen album seems to have been a side-project? So is there any source for the band being absolutely definitely 100% apart all this time? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lot's of people state the band have reformed - The Guardian, Mtv, Drowned in Sound, The Fly, The Telegraph etc. etc. Blur split then reformed, U2 took some time off in between records.Cavie78 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The band have never that they ever disbanded; that's why its at "1989–present". In fact, for the last three years, they've always said "not now, but maybe in a while" definitely. indopug (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not a split has been announced is IRRELEVENT. They were not active between 2003 and 2008 as they performed no concerts, released no material or appeared at no events under the Blur name. This MUST state 1989-2003 and 2008 (or 2009)-present. Tom Green (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Official website/forum

Seems to be the only place to ask this. Are they not approving new members on the forums, or what? When I read article it said Blur are canadian and formed in London Sure thats wrong Janepebbles (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reunion Gigs

I'm new to Wikipedia so not quite sure of policy. Is it noteworthy that at least two of the warmup gigs are at significant venues to the history of the band, ie East Anglian Railway Museum (return to first ever gig) and Goldsmiths College (where band met)? Also how relevant is naming the support acts at Manchester? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr goodtaste (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually considering that this is a 20+ years career overview of the band, none of this needs mentioning. Thanks! indopug (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

London or Colchester

There seems to be a bit of an edit war forming over whether the band formed in Colchester or London. Can we discuss it here, please, rather than hacking about with the article. The band formed mainly from students at Goldsmith's College in London, that much is verifiable (and sourced) fact. Albarn was originally from London but spent some of his childhood in Colchester. If anyone wants the article to state that the band formed in Colchester, please provide sources for this. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just had a quick flick through the Stuart Maconie book. As I see, Blur are associated with Colchester. probably because Dave Rowntree was born there, with Graham & Damon moving there before their teens. However, the seed of Blur were sown in London, specifically Beat Studios in Euston, where Circus rehearsed (with Damon & Graham), Dave joining in 1988. Alex joined in 1989, as a result of social connection with Graham, via Goldsmiths where they were students.

I vote London--Mr goodtaste (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm for London as that was where the guys came together/met and where the actual genesis of the band occurred. I'm not really sure how Colchester has relevance for the band as an entity. --WebHamster 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really something we'd !vote on. We need to convey what the reliable sourcing says. You say the source says they are associated with Colchester, how does it word that? How does the source refer to their connections with London? If the source isn't explicit, is there another source that can be used that is clearer? user:J aka justen (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The associated with Colchester bit is just my impression; Dave Graham & Damon spent their early life there - i dont think that its relevant to the formation of Blur.

"Alex remembers that the first rehearsal with himself, Damon, Dave and Graham took place on the day before Goldsmiths' winter term of 1989 ended and the college broke up for the Christmas vacation. 'We went to the Beat Factory [in Euston] and we did "She's So High" all together for the first time'" - Stuart Maconie - Blur 3862 Days. The Official History--Mr goodtaste (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That would appear to support the assertion that the band "formed" in London, if you agree that their first rehearsal would effectively be their formation. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollercoaster Tour

Article states that Blur toured the USA as part of the Rollercoaster Tour. I think I remember that Rollercoaster was just a UK tour with MBV, Dinosaur Jr and JAMC - wasn't the US trip just Blur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr goodtaste (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}There is no photo of the band at the top of the info box, so I would like to suggest adding a recent photograph of the reformed band. I would recommend http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/13/1244847986578/Blur-001.jpg, http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/music/Pix/pictures/2009/6/12/1244821451682/Blur-002.jpg or http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b31/under_a_blood_red_sky/88431409.jpg Josheatslemons (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Please use the commons to upload the image and give information about its source. Someone will be glad to help once the copyright protection issues are dealt with. Celestra (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of NME/MTV awards

Mention of Blur winning MTV and NME awards has been repeatedly added, and repatedly removed by user User:Indopug, on the occasion when they used an edit summary claiming "As many other editors and I have repeatedly explained, music video awards are not important enough to include in an article that provides a 20+ years overview of a band;s career." I can find no discussion of this or consensus for the omission of this information in this talk page or its archive. I can see no valid reason for omitting this information. If there's a discussion somewhere that shows that this has been discussed and that it has been agreed that the awards are not included, please point us towards it so that we can leave the article in a stable state one way or the other. It seems strange that we wouldn't mention prestigious awards like this but mention placings on charts such as the Modern Rock chart (not even based on sales). Let's have some demonstrable consensus here rather than repeated reversion.--Michig (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point, these aren't prestigious awards. The article does mention the BRIT awards they won, simply because they are a big deal (esp. when Blur them for Parklife, as it was seen as a sign of indie coming to the forefront of the mainstream). MTV Europe Video Awards, on the other hand, aren't a big deal at all. Can you imagine how cumbersome this article would become if we had include every award Blur won? This is why we have separate Awards/Nominations articles.

As for discussion, if you had looked the revision history of the article for the past year and a half, you'd see me (and WesleyDodds and others, on occasion) explain how this info is not really important. indopug (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

These are hardly minor awards, and they don't appear to be mentioned anywhere else. You and another editor opining that they should not be included in the occasional edit summary hardly amounts to achieving consensus. Given that there is a difference of opinion between editors on this issue, achieving consensus on the talk page seems the most reasonable approach. If this discussion achieves such a consensus we can put an end to the constant reverting.--Michig (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we will seek consensus with this discussion. indopug (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind listing major award wins. The problem is the mention of these awards is always too specific (focusing pretty much on "Coffee and TV", because there are editors who really really really like the video). It's giving undue weight, when instead the focus on awards for "Coffee and TV" should be in the "Coffee and TV" article. And really, MTV and NME awards are not as important as Grammys or BRITs. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards for a video can be left out of the main text, assuming the band themselves didn't direct it, which in this case they didn't - the award is for the video director, not the band. The NME awards are one of the more important award ceremonies in the UK. The BRIT awards are very major-label pop-oriented, and not very highly-regarded by music fans, the NME awards are kind of the alternative equivalent. For pop/rock, the Brits and the NME awards are the two biggest in the UK that come to mind, the only other major one being the Mercury Prize, which can be for any genre. How about just having an awards section at the end, where these can be listed? And do we really need to mention playola charts such as the Modern Rock chart? ("The Universal" plays on a TV advert in the background while I type by pure coincidence).--Michig (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See this, for example, regarding the BRITs and the NME awards.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with ANY fact being added to a Wikipedia page, so long as it is not completely trivial, and it flows succinctly within the text. Part of my joy of browsing an encyclopaedia is to be informed of facts that I might not have considered before. IMHO the problems with the Coffee & TV video award info (and its constant companion, the Girls & Boys US chart position) was that it appeared to be (like some other content, if I'm honest), just bolted onto the text with not much consideration of the flow of the text. Its a pertinent fact (if not hugely important, but hey, whats important to one person might be banal trivia to another.) Reference the G&B US chart position; if one is mentioning the change in fortune of Blur regarding more airplay & a high UK chart placing, what is the problem in also mentioning a similar effect in the US - within the same sentence or two. If it flows, its OK (IMO). Similarly Coffee and TV, if its mentioned that the chart placing was disappointing, why not counterpoint it with a fact about its award winning video. If a way can be found to present it subtly and well, I'm OK with it. Hope my thoughts make sense and not too waffly or pretentious, just back from the pub! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr goodtaste (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested text compromises - "The album's first single, the disco-influenced "Girls & Boys", enjoyed significant radio play. It peaked at number five on the UK singles chart and number four on the US Modern Rock chart, where it remains the band's highest charting single to date.

After "Coffee & TV", featuring an award winning video [citation] and the first Blur single to feature Coxon on lead vocals, managed to only reach number 11 in the UK, manager Chris Morrison demanded a chart re-run because of a supposed sales miscalculation Mr goodtaste (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair. I don't agree that these facts are the least bit irrelevent or trivial, but I will happily incorporate them within the same sentences.124.184.17.138 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! I thought this had been solved. Indopug has deleted the amendments that I suggested, and which were agreed by another user. This apparently was not a consensus. However, I see no consensus to REMOVE the change either! IMO the changes were acceptable and seemed to have stopped the edit war. I think its perfectly acceptable to mention the placing of Girls and Boys in the Modern Rock Chart - it gives context to that tiny part of the article, and is sourced. Indopug may not agree that it is important, but I could find lots of facts in the article which, while on their own are not important, give context. (Besides, I think the fact it was the highest placed Blur single in the US is important.) I agreed that simply listing the awards Coffee & TV was too much (although I appreciate that other users disagree.) That is why I suggested putting 'Award winning'. Both these changes were acceptable to user 124.184.17.138 and did not adverslely affect the article. Why start the war again? Mr goodtaste (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with this version of the article as edited by Mr goodtaste. Some of the refs needed a bit of tidying which I've done.--Michig (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed these last two comments until now. I think "award-winning"—when used as an adjective—is an awfully peacocky term. indopug (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure other Blur songs won awards. That sort of thing can be dealt with in the individual song articles. Again, why is the focus exclusively on "Tender" and "Coffee & TV"? They weren't even the band's biggest hits. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because NME best single is an important category, as is winning 3 video awards (hence 'multi-award winning'). I'd explicitly mention that Tender won best single, but you consider that irrelevent, so the compromise is 'award-winning'. The only single which was of superior scale in terms of awards is parklife, so this is not trivial stuff to be isolated to song articles. And it creates more context than a sales miscalculation, that's for sure. Now, it was agreed that award-winning was acceptable, and that only now you criticise this is just odd and blatantly suspicious. If you can think of a 'non-peacocky' alternative for "award-winning" then by all means use it. But until then, stop looking for a war. 58.165.183.40 (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is still not relevant to this article and belongs in the individual song articles. A separate awards section is the usual way of dealing with these. --JD554 (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, as my above argument stands. 121.217.5.35 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The wp:consensus seems to be for not including the wp:peacock statements. --JD554 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. An argument is required to revert what was for many months the agreed-upon edit. 121.217.5.35 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Chemical World" release date

(Context: dispute over release date at the Chemical World article.)

The single release date must have been before 5 July 1993, because it entered the singles chart on Sunday 4 July (commonly noted in chart listings as 10 July, as it's the chart week ending on Saturday 10 July). See Chart Stats or search at polyhex.com. Indopug has pointed out a Select article from the July 1995 issue that says otherwise, but (for the reason I've stated) this is undoubtedly incorrect.

According to this fan discography page, the CD2 and 12" versions were released on 5 July, but CD1 and 7" were released on 28 June. However, I don't propose that a fan site be used as a citation in the article, so does anyone have a source that corroborates these dates? –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

==