Talk:The Libertines/Archive 1

I think that much of the history (particularly early history) contained within this article is lifted directly from the book "The Libertines Bound Together". Surely it should be cited, rather than just having an additional reference?

There is a dead link to a photo in the section "second album...". Would the person who put this link in fix it? Freecorbinj 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In the opener, what would you define as being the quintessential english take on rock and roll?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.207.195 (talk • contribs)

Good question; I think that this is tackled later in the article in this paragraph:

'The band has been compared to many classic British rock n' roll bands, as their angle on rock n' roll is uniquely English. Their sound is often likened to the sound of The Jam, The Kinks' early records as well as The Clash's first album and early singles. They are perhaps most similar to pioneer rockers, The Buzzcocks. Morrissey is another key influence cited by the band members. Many of their lyrics refer to elements of British life, use English/cockney slang and are often in a near-drunken sounding slur. In their attitude they are almost always compared to The Sex Pistols due --DavidShankBone 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)to their chaotic and energetic live performances and Pete Doherty's instability and nihilistic, self-destructive behavior'

Robdurbar 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The KLF

Has anyone seen an article claiming that Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty of The KLF"mastermined" The Libertines? A friend forwarded it but there's no source... possibly an unpublished/not yet published hoax article! i've mirrored the email here --timeheater 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:The_KLF#The_Libertines. --kingboyk 11:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

== Discography == I added an image-based discography as the Libertines haven't a massive back catalogue, therefore does not take alot of space. However, should we keep the image-based discgroupy or go for a text-based version? Befuddled Steve 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC) --Befuddled Steve 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What genre?

It seems with the Libertines and the bands its members have subsequently founded that their is a lot of disagreement as to which genre their music falls into. I feel that The Libertines, DPT and Babyshambles (albeit to a lesser extent due to their wide range of musical styles, i.e. Pentonville), fall under the genre of garage rock. However, I'd like to reach a consensus before making any further changes to the articles. Any comments?

I think all the styles stated are correct (Garage rock [revival], Indie rock, Post-punk revival, Alternative rock) and Garage Rock does fit with to co-inside with The Strokes, The Whites Stripes, The Hives etc -all part of NME's claimed, "New Rock Revolution". So you have my vote for Garage Rock genre.--Befuddled Steve 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there was the name ' Urchin Rock ' originally noted in the UK music press plus another one which had the genre name more focused on the London area

I set the styles back to "Garage rock, Indie rock, Post-punk revival, Alternative rock" as discussed above. Somehow it drifted away from that since these comments were posted... -- dockingman^talk 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative rock seems redundant - indie is a subgenre of alternative. I'm removing it. 195.195.166.31 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always viewed them as THE indie band, so my vote's for Indie.

Bootlegs article

I've started an article: List of Libertines and Babyshambles bootlegs. I think they believe together as the boundaries between the two are often blurred. I think the article is reasonably 'important' as its quite a big part of their legacy. The article needs a lot of work, please add to it. Damiancorrigan 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes i think the bootlegs are extremly fundimental to the Libertines/Babyshambles legacy. I have linked it to the templete so people can get to it easier to maintain. --Befuddled Steve 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I Recon Their Indi With A Bit Off Soft Rock

Revert?

In consideration of the changes User:Trebor Rowntree has made to the article, I propose we revert the whole page to his last useful edit. The first paragraph should show what I mean: He changed

"Their success included a #2 single and #1 album in the U.K. charts. However, the band experienced problems, many caused by Doherty's considerable drug use, and split at the end of 2004."

to

"Although initially their mainstream success was limited, their profile grew culminating in a #2 single and #1 album in the U.K. Charts. However, the band's music was often eclipsed by its internal conflicts, many of which stemmed from Doherty's considerable drug use."

I think this is totally overdone. He may rephrase it, but the article should remain skimmable. -- dreadlady 19:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I wrote a lot of the original text and it hasn't been changed since then. I reread it about a month later and thought it could be improved so had a go. Secondly, a block revert would be ridiculous unless you want to take out the numerous images, footnotes and sound clip I've added since. Feel free to rephrase away, I'm no great writer, but a straight revert wouldn't work. Trebor 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, I just checked. Both versions were written by me. So obviously at least some of my edits are useful ;) Trebor 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, surely. Many of your edits are very useful, as you corrected loads of mistakes, added images, notes, etc. Still I think the complicated parts, like the paragraph mentioned above, should be reworked. I won't insist on reverting the history if I'm the only one who thinks it is implicitly necessary. -- dreadlady 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the earlier version of that paragraph. For example, 'succes was limited' is not entirely true; remember that 3 or 4 years ago it was a lot less common for indie/rock acts to enjoy instant chart succes. The White Stripes/Strokes first UK chart singles all entered much lower down than say, the Arctic Monkeys etc. now; indeed, charting at all would be described as success I think. --[[User:Robdurbar|Robd--DavidShankBone 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)urbar]] 09:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not overdone. It should sound intelligent, proper and accurate like a quality encyclopedia. Bang bang you're dead 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Overrated?

I don't see any references in the piece about 'musical style and legacy', nor do I see criticisms about the band anywhere in the article

Can you point to a band page where a section on criticisms is located, so I can sense what you are talking about? Same for musical style and legacy. Thanks

Why would I have to point to another bands' page? Even if a critisims header was never done before doesn't mean The Libertines is undeserving of such. If it's a bad idea I would like to see comments from the other end of the critisism-scale, which are totally absent.

You're very defensive, when I only was trying to figure out what you wanted. Sounds more like you have an ax to grind with the band than you have any real, useful suggestion for an additional section. But hey--why don't you research musicial criticism of The Libertines, write a paragraph, make sure it is cited by a reliable source. I encourae you to do so---if you can back it up with cites to verifiable media sources with credibility, then you have a responsibility to do so. Otherwise, no, you can't just write any old thing you want about anybody and not back up what you write, either with concurring critical analysis (you can't base it upon original research) in a reputable publication; or with some other reference that supports your phrasing. Otherwise--I agree!--life and rules suck! --DavidShankBone 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I give you some advice, DavidShankBone? Don't take this as being nasty in any way at all, BTW, but you should show them the way. Put some "verifiable media sources in" yourself, as you say (and if you have, put loads more in) and then you will have made a very good point. The best way to make a point is to say, "I did it, so why can't you?" Go for it, and have fun. andreasegde 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reunion?

Aren't they performing together on the 19th April at Hammersmith Palais?(ColaRules 10:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

A question

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea. Not worth the hassle, and I have never seen it written the Libertines anywhere before. 85.211.251.14 15:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, The Libertines are known (as a band) as THE Libertines, not just Libertines. It seems like it would cause more hassle- it might even bring up a question of whether they are in fact The Libertines, or just Libertines- which seems like an unnecessary topic.

The other 'The Libertines'

I am sure that I got hold of an album back in '93 or '94 by a band called The Libertines- it was an early '90s take on late '60s psycadelica if I recall correctly. Anybody else know anything about this?--Fergie 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard a track of theirs called 'Cola Queen' if I remember correctly. I wonder is this the same band? Eleccy 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that the band who produced Cola Queen amongst other songs is not the same as the band this article describes. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.193.40 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kickstarted a Genre

Shouldn't it mention that without them and a couple of others. Arctic Monkeys and what not would never have had a chance?

YES

It's not really constructive to the article, is it really? The Libertines were just one of several guitar bands at the time who got the indie-bandwagon rolling again. They didn't really 'kickstart' a genre, as indie-rock has existed for decades. Pullshapes (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

{[talkarchive}}