Talk:Cardiacs/Archive 1

Issue with a certain Ironholds!

Everyone who is remotely familiar with the work of Tim Smith and Cardiacs will know that the sound is entirely unique. I found is very sad to see that a certain Ironolds had removed the information placed at the top of the page a while stating that the Cardiacs sound is 'unique, varied, complex and intense'...why? why do this? These are the best words to describe this special band, without the slightest doubt. I suggest Ironholds makes himself familiar with their music before he plays Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicalImportance (talk • contribs) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue looks as if it's been running quite intensely for a while. While I'm sympathetic to your opinion, and disagree that the repeated posting constitutes "vandalism" (it's more a persistent and deliberate failure of NPOV), Ironholds is technically right to remove those phrases. To avoid subjective arguments, I suggest that you (or someone else reading this) locates a written review which uses similar terms to the ones you've been using to describe the band, and then references it.

As regards unique, I hear previous bands in Cardiacs' music such as Gentle Giant, Split Enz, XTC etc... Subjectively speaking, Cardiacs' processing of their influences is unique (or at least, it's original, given that other bands have followed where they led). However, it's not a good idea to use that adjective as an opinion in the article itself unless you're quoting an identifiable source. It's tough to remember sometimes, but we are not here to write glowing criticism. There are ways of writing to the spirit of what you want to portray in Wikipedia, but remember that there are rules to follow. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) - 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit of History!

I have edited the history because it was becoming outdated. Cardiacs have released Ditzy Scene since this was created and I've echoed this in my edit.

Drterror666 (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit of enthusiastic praise

I've edited the following:

"It surprises many fans that Cardiacs have not achieved wider fame, but the uncompromising complexity and intensity of much of their music puts off many listeners used to more basic fare."

And merged it into an existing sentence to become:

"Combining the excitement and energy of punk rock with the intricacies and technical cleverness of early British progressive rock, a combination sometimes referred to as pronk, their sound is unique, varied, complex and intense."

Even though I'm unhappy that it loses a great compliment (with which I agree).

My reasoning being:

• Fans of any music are liable to be surprised that their heroes are not more widely music, so that observation is unhelpful.
• The "many listeners" is a bit hazy. The truth is most people will never get to hear a Cardiacs track due to the (criminal!) lack of publicity and airplay, so the sentence comes across badly in that light.
• And saying they're used to more "basic fare"... the broad audience are quite sophisticated - Radiohead and Muse are huge in spite of being complex. --bodnotbod 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. But it is hard to remain NPOV on band pages! NickW 15:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to remain NPOV, and ashley I think it's better to put a bit of POV in there. Cardiacs are really in a different category from Radiohead or Muse. Cardiacs are like Yes or Rush or Thinking Plague. But they sing great tunes too. No other band does that. But I only discovered them a year ago and I'll leave the entry as it is until I can think of a less obviously POV entry.

• A good way of getting in some fulsome praise is to quote a notable publication or person calling them Gods. Us folk, hearts in the right place as maybe, have to avoid describing our own emotions about them. A way of getting round POV is to write your own Cardiacs article which you host off of Wikipedia and then put a link to it in the article. Though it will have to be a good piece you've written (and not obviously money-generating) for the link to survive.

I wasn't seeking to make a direct comparison between Radiohead/Muse and The Cardiacs. I was trying to point out that people who like relatively obscure music (as I do) find it quite easy to denigrate the slack-jawed mob who are purchasing the latest tinny bit of Radio 1 fodder †. But you only have to go into a large record store to see that the buying public is looking for more than just the Top 20.

† Footnote: One of the first questions I tend to ask people when I find myself stuck talking to someone at a new job or party is to ask what music they like. I was horrified by how many said "oh anything really" and I'd press them saying "well, what was the last thing you bought?" and it would be "Now That's What I Call Music 504". And I remember going to a colleagues house and rifling through his record collection and it was all Rick Astley this and Janet Jackson that with appalling "Best Ofs" all about the place and I thought "so this is the person that buys them.

So what I'm saying is, I fully agree with the sentiment of feeling special for liking the Cardiacs, but we must restrain ourselves. I commend this bill to the house. --bodnotbod 14:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

'Hear-Hear' (waves a bit of paper in the air, dribbles a bit, goes back to sleep..) NickW 15:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Marillion fans

I have queried the source for the 'pelting of the band by Marillion fans' I can recall seeing the Cardiacs support Marillion at the Hammersmith Odeon in 1984 ('85?) and they certainly weren't pelted, or had objects thrown at them, by the fans. The only thing that was thrown was flowers, brought out and tossed over the band towards the end of their impressive, mind-blowing set, by one of their entourage. I will never forget the experience! "The Seaside" was purchased outside the venue for five pounds and still gets played! Stephenjh 10:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's mentioned in one of the interviews in the Organ anthology - I'll check it out.... can't do that now though as I'm about to go and see Cardiacs at the Astoria :) NickW 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cardiacs History and Discography

I have now completed work on overhauling the History and Discography elements on the Cardiacs page. I will continue to add information as I find it, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drterror666 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job! NickW (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Redo

I'm working on redoing the page a bit to make it a bit more NPOV. In addition, for all you cardiac fans out there; I was unable to find a cardiacs-based userbox, so if you add {{User:Ironholds/userboxes/cardiacs}} to your userpage it will display: User:Ironholds/userboxes/cardiacs Hope that's useful to people other than me :). Ironholds 06:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrites and Rollbacks

I'm aware that rewriting an article doesn't grant a contributor ownership over that article, and that submitting stuff to Wikipedia almost guarantees that you'll be edited to some degree or another. However, I was pretty disappointed to see that almost all of my rewrite from November 11 was savagely pruned away by User:79.68.129.175 (whoever that may be), despite the fact that the written material was backed up by research sourced from various dedicated Cardiacs fanpages and (IMHO) added a lot to the article.

If it was simply a question of the article now being too long, then fair enough. But if someone is going to roll back my contributions quite that severely, I would prefer it if they at least provided a note, summary or comment regarding their reasoning behind doing so. I'm happy to involve myself in reasonable conversation about the article and to contribute to it, in the future, in a reasonable way (My initial rewrite incorporated much or most of the previous version's text, and thus did not disrespect previous contributions by others).

I'll give this a few days, and then start restoring those parts of my November 11 edit which I still believe to be valid and useful. Correspondence welcomed. Thanks! - Dann Chinn (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Chinn's Rewrite

Hello there, I am very sorry for not leaving a note stating why i reverted your changes, i was in a rush. I had some band names to contribute to their influence section and saw your edit and quickly changed it back before rushing off.

I put the top of the page back to the way it had almost always been because there was nothing wrong with it, people who are familiar with the band whether they hate them or love them will always agree with that; and yes some the references to back the statements up were off cardiacs fan sites, but off pages of the sites containing both reviews of their albums and of their gigs from throughout their career by music mags and top music critics...Organ music mag's official site, and Cardiacs official site (containing all their old reviews of shows and releases) are hardly fan sites.

Sorry mate, but i really don't think there was any place for what you had at the top of the page (not the best intro if you will, for those who are teaching themself music history), i think what you did say if i remember rightly would be perfect tied into the Influence section of the page or the 21st century revival section of the history, because the page has nothing mentioning Cardiacs cult following yet, which you cleverly have brought to the table.

So yes mate, stick it in there some where, just not as an intro, where there is already a good enough intro that has been there for a good while.

Sorry again for not letting you know straight away. i hope you can see why the page should be left as it is, and if a change is to be made it should be to add to what is already there, not to subtract from it, as all the current info is well referenced and agreeable.

i appreciate you taking the time to read this

all the best

(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.129.175 (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I think there have been a few misunderstandings/misinterpretations here.

Firstly, you've reverted the entire article, not just my alteration of the introductory paragraph, which had the effect of removing all of the additions I'd made to coverage of the band's history. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you didn't read past the opening paragraph before making your change. If this was the case, it would help in future if you paid a little more attention before doing a wholesale revert.

Secondly, when I mentioned "fansites" above, I wasn't taking a pop at sources you'd quoted - certainly not sites like the official Cardiacs page or the Organ page. I was referring to my own use of fansites as sources, as part of my rewrite... :-) Sometimes they're the only people who do the coverage, and I reckon they're often a valid source as, again, most of them act in good faith.

I can see that you obviously care about this article (as do I), so I suggest that in future we collaborate on it more effectively. I'll read your edits carefully before I make my own, and am open to suggestions - but I'll now start reintroducing some of the material which I added. Feel free to drop me lines on my talk page if you like.

Good to see that you added the reference to the poetry which influences Tim Smith. Nice addition!

As regards that opening paragraph, I shall think carefully if and before I attempt to redraft it again. - Dann Chinn (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to all. Further to discussions with User:79.68.129.175, we've resolved our differences and clarified the situation. I've now restored the content of my November 11th rewrite (and included his additions!). There is now more content to the article (in particular, the history section) and I have endeavoured to maintain NPOV as much as possible. I hope that you all like it, and I look forward to the next addition. - Dann Chinn (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The page need a band pic under the name! plus lots of audio samples of the tunes!!!

Please please someone stick them on!

x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.129.175 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Performance art and mythology

One thing which is not covered by this article is Cardiacs' peculiar approach to performance and auto-mythologising, which I believe is an important component of their art. I'm talking about the acting-out of various infantile preoccupations by Tim and others, plus their presentation of the themes of friction between childhood and adulthood; the spectres of war, the workplace and authority, etc. Also the role and presentation of the Alphabet Business Concern and its relationship with Cardiacs, and some of the "urban myths" which the band propogates about its activities. This really deserves a section in its own right, and will be very difficult to write without falling foul of guidelines on NPOV and solid sources. I'll think about how to do this, but if anyone else wants to make a start on this section or discuss it, please feel free. (Organ, of course, has various snippets which can be referenced, if anyone can dig up the old back-issues). - Dann Chinn (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Couple of wee points

Didn't Kavus write the lyrics to Ditzy Scene?

And is it worth mentioning Tim's onstage mistreatment of Jim and all the Jim chanting that goes on at concerts?

Oh, one more thing comes to mind. The alpha chimes - worth a mention? Yarm (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the mistreatment of Jim, the chanting etc - I am trying to incorporate this into my draft section on Performance Art & Mythology... which I am trying to avoid turning into something that reads like a university dissertation! ;-) If you've something to contribute here (back-up info, quotes etc) drop me a line on my page.

Re lyrics - I think Bob Leith (and Jon Poole?) contributed to the words for Manhoo as well... I don't have my copy of Sing To God to hand, but the credits are in the notes. - Dann Chinn (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Influences on, influences for

The "Influence on other artists" section is getting a bit wobbly. Surely Cardiacs are influenced by Devo and Split Enz, and not the other way around? Sparks, too?

Influences on Cardiacs should go in the "Sound and inspiration" section above. A few citations would be useful, too, so that it doesn't look as if we're including bands on the basis of what they sound like rather than what they've said.

Having said all that, I'm going to add It Bites to the list, as keyboard player John Beck has stated that he's a fan... - Dann Chinn (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are still a lot of problems with this section. I've just tidied it up so that it's no longer just one long deranged run-on sentence apparently listing every band which sounds a bit like Cardiacs. However, I'm concerned that in the name of good faith I've left in a number of bands who probably have nothing to do with Cardiacs except in the minds of several overenthusiastic fans. I mean... Talking Heads? Who were critical favourites and most of the way through their career before Cardiacs had even released anything on vinyl? Or This Heat who were doing their own rather more sober art-rock approach in a different field to Cardiacs?

Between us, we've managed to make the rest of the article look fairly professional, but this bit of gushing is letting the rest of the work down. I'll leave it for a while so that others to drop in a few appropriate citations and then I'll start editing via snipping the list and/or peppering it with "citation needed" tags. Fair enough? - Dann Chinn (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of quotes

Re Ironholds' removal of the quotes section (commenting "all editors please take note; lyric and interview quotes are unneeded, unsourced and detract from the article")

I agree that unsourced interview material is questionable, and that bulk lyric quotes are an unnecessary distraction, but surely appropriately sourced quotes can be used in moderation? Some of Tim's interview quotes provided some interesting perspective on Cardiacs' thought process.

Could we agree that quotes should be edited appropriately and also properly integrated into the article if used? I will have a look at the deleted content and see if I can make this work. - Dann Chinn (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really a need for quotes. If we're using them to illustrate a point in the history/attitude of the band, fair enough, but even then they can be simply 1) included as a source or 2) included in the text rather than the previous "post everything ever" approach. I'm currently working on my own version of the article in a sandbox free from the interference of IP cardiac fans who don't understand the wiki and assume that because I don't want to include everything ever said about the band by some bloke dave who thinks they're AWESOME I'm obviously a hater who doesn't get the band.Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironholds - I basically agree with you on the use of quotes in the article - as illustration and inclusive text rather than general splurge. Thanks for clarifying your position. ;-) I'm sure that there are going to be a lot of back-and-forth changes in the article in the future. As previous arguments over this particular article have become heated, can we all agree to keep edits and additions to this particular article more subtle in the future, and also possibly discuss any big changes out here on the talk page before putting them into practise? - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, sure. My future changes will be (or should be): Cut down the "influenced" section to only a few bands (not every band ever that likes them) and reference it, rewrite the introduction, remove all the dodgy referencing and, where statements cannot be backed up with good referencing, remove those too. We have a problem with an article where a large chunk of it cites an angelfire site as a source.Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For information - I think I recall providing much of the earlier quoted material from MM and the Organ etc.., the web references were added later by another editor. Granted more citation information could have been added (e.g. page nos.) but citations to print material is as valid as citations to web pages (shock horror - not everything is on the web). I think a selection of quotes from the music press IS valid for this kind of article and will edit as such. NickW (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't talk down to me. Quotes as a standalone thing are not useful; if present they should be within the text to illustrate facts, not sitting in a little section on their own. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a paperback; blurbs and endorsements add nothing unless framed properly.Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Ironholds' comments on "we have a problem with an article where a large chunk of it cites an angelfire site as a source" (referring obliquely to the Cardiacs Ultimate Gig List).

With respect, although an "angelfire site" in itself can be considered less professional than (for instance) a professional newspaper archive, it's a question of context. The Cardiacs Ultimate Gig List has been assembled by an enthusiast (or enthusiasts) as a sincere amateur archive covering a topic which a larger archive would not (such a situation is often the case with underground artists or acts). However, it's not the kind of endeavour that one generally puts together purely to propagate inaccurate information.

I think in this case it is more appropriate to assume good faith as regards this particular source, rather than remove the material altogether - especially as the source in question attempts to present basic information and attributed quotes rather than simply present unsubstantiated opinions. Please consider this before making your edit, especially as the content sourced from this particular website supports the article and provides historical detail as well as indirect input from band members. Thanks for reading this. - Dann Chinn (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the use of quotes - I've now integrated one of the quotes from the Harmonie magazine interview into the Sounds and Inspirations section and provided a full reference back to the source. Please could all concerned parties check it and comment on whether this is the way to proceed as regards using quotes.

Regarding some of the removed quotes - some of Tim Smith's comments on war, suburbia and Alphabet Business Concern could fit into the proposed "Performance Art and Mythology" section which I proposed earlier, or be incorporated into a section within his personal Wikipedia entry regarding his artistic outlook. - Dann Chinn (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Performance art and mythology" sounds rather OR-y to me. May I suggest sticking it here or in a user sandbox before sticking it on the main page so we can take a look?Ironholds (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"OR-y" meaning "Original Research"? Yes, I was worried that it might end up that way and have every intention of preventing that from happening. I'm quite happy to sandbox it and invite comments before integrating it into the main article. - Dann Chinn (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. After posting this I saw your post above (ages ago about the same thing); I like the idea. I think maybe a general "style" para with that, their live performances (which link in) and their musical descriptions would work. I'm not quite sure how you can do it, though; there are a lot of live reviews describing them as childish, highlighting their bizarre appearences etc but inferring into that would count (as I said) as OR.Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolving repeated edit disagreements on this article

As arguments over editing and appropriate sourcing of input on this specific article are becoming fiercer again, could we make more use of the {{Fact}} tag in instances of poorly supported/entirely unsupported information? (with discretion and diplomacy used, of course.

This seems to be the fairest way of challenging questionable material on an article that attracts some fairly passionate editing. :-) Thanks. - Dann Chinn (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit proposal

Remove the "Albums produced by.." section and move the discography to a second page, leaving just the studio albums and a link to the full thing (see Rush_(band)#Discography as an example). Albums produced by band members is not a section that really adds much to the article; more appropriate, imo, to have them on the pages of the bandmembers rather than the main article itself.Ironholds (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lists of Tim Smith's production work, in particular, belong in the Tim Smith article, although some connections via production could be referred to in the main text of the Cardiacs article as and where appropriate.

Am assuming that when you say "just the studio albums" you mean "just the actual Cardiacs discography, not everything Tim, Jon, Mark etc have ever touched..." - Dann Chinn (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, studio albums. So not singles, live albums, compilations etc. The discography as a whole gets moved to "cardiacs discography" or whatever and the studio albums and a link to it get left. list of spratleys japs and so on productions should, I think, just be scrapped from this.Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. If someone could put together a Cardiacs discography which was as detailed as the Rush one, I'd agree with that. In the meantime, I'd suggest keeping the entire Cardiacs discography (including singles, live albums, compilations) as part of the main article; moving info on production jobs by band members to specific articles dealing with those band members; and creating stubs for the various Cardiacs spin-offs that don't have them yet (just Panixsphere and Spratleys Japs, isn't it?) EDIT - I have now created stubs for both of these... - Dann Chinn (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On a positive note

I think everything Dann Chinn has been doing for the Cardiacs and Cardiacs-related articles is all very valid info for anyone who knows little about the band or wants to know more, as he clearly knows a lot about Tim Smith's work and career. Mr. Chinn is clearly the best wikipedian to be making changes on these articles. Keep it up Dann! You've done great job so far and you've done a better job than anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.128.149 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the compliment and citation, 79.67.128.149 - can I call you '79? ;-)

However, I think we've all got contributions to make here - we just need to discuss them first, given the evident passion the band inspires, even on Wikipedia. I'm certainly not going to "own" the article - but if anyone wants to discuss edits and additions with me on a basis of equals (via this talk page or my own), I'm quite happy to do that.

Ironholds has made some good points about rearranging the article, which I think we should take further. Developing from these, here are my opinions at the moment:

- Creating separate articles for Cardiacs discographyand Bands and musicians related to Cardiacs would be a good idea (perhaps someone more used to advanced Wikipedia styling than myself could take this on?). Regarding the latter, the material could be taken from and adapted from the existing material at the end of the current article. In effect we are dealing with an entire "scene" here and all of this information can crowd the article.

- Creating separate articles for Spratleys Japs and Panixphere (spelling?) would also be a good idea. I have already done this, although my Panixphere stub was immediately deleted (so obviously needs some more citations and backup). Other Cardiacs-spinoffs which have released music and/or feature musicians from other notable projects should also have their own articles (with appropriate hints re notability in the first paragraph, preferably backed up by citations in print or online). As much as possible of the Cardiacs-related info regarding these artists should be in their own articles.

- Production jobs by Tim Smith, Mark Cawthra, Jon Poole, Kavus Torabi etc should be listed in those guy's own articles (simple logic - Tim produces other people's records, but Cardiacs do not.)

- Any firm statements re Cardiacs motivations and influences should be backed up with good evidence - a reference is best, but some kind of hard evidence will do. Exercise judgement on what's an opinion or a possibility and what is actually the case (for example, the question of Cardiacs' lyrical inspirations is generally stonewalled by Tim Smith but the cited reference in the article clearly indicates where he's occasionally borrowed from, although not how reverently he treats or considershis sources).

- If you have insider knowledge (quite likely, as regards the Cardiacs fanbase!) and wish to present it in the article, be judicious about how you do so. Remember distinctions between gossip and actuality. There's traditionally been a good deal of mystery and deliberate disinformation around the band, so the nature of any information presented should be noted appropriately. Try to avoid using weasel words, but if the information is significantly interesting and you have no other option, they can be used as a stopgap (and will probably be quickly tagged as weasel words by another user, which will help other readers sort hard fact from possible fact. (If in doubt, consult the Wiki article on weasel words linked to above).

- Avoid gushing. Cardiacs do inspire devotion, but that's best left to fansites. You can, of course, quote other people gushing about the band, but be judicious.

Apologies to anyone to whom any/all of this kind of advice is old news - I hope that it's useful to everyone else.

If anyone else has more suggestions, please add them. - Dann Chinn (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my God...

...what have you done to my beautiful page!

Drterror666 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the gushing fanboy comments, the quotes section, the mass of information about everything cardiacs members have ever done and started putting in some proper references. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gushing fanboy comments? You mean there were some? When I decided I'd have a go at the Cardiacs page, I originally only wanted to update the discog, which was in a dire state of disrepair. I then had a go at the main body. Still, you're doing a good job of it. I may pop in from timt to time, though... Drterror666 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)