Talk:The Fall (band)

Boring, boring, boring

Despite the fact that the subject of this article is a band with a truly unique and engaging history, this page has become increasing dull and boring. The 'History' section, in particular, has degenerated into little more than an exhaustive list of recording sessions, release dates and the details of every tweak of the ever-changing line-up. For example, do we really need to know that in 1979 "Rowche Rumble" is recorded on 11th June 1979 at Cargo Studios, Rochdale, or that Mike Leigh first appeared live on Wednesday, 14 February 1979 at Bowden Vale Social Club, Altrincham?
If the recording details of records by The Fall are so interesting, include them on the relevant album's article, or start a new page. Likewise, we already have an article on Members of The Fall - flesh that out with the minutae of the line-up changes, but let's not clog up the main article with (largely unsourced) information that would be of interest to only the most ardent Fall fans.
The Fall are a band whose article should aim for nothing less than Featured Article status - I suggest we take a good look at what a Good Article looks like, start stripping out all of the cruft, incorporate the salient points from all of these lists into the main body of the article, and start sharing with the world the true beauty and intrigue of The Fall.
Is there really nothing interesting to say? sparkl_!sm ^talk 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. Wwwhatsup 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact I've reverted today's edits in lieu of a complete rewrite. I'd suggest that the user 1) get a login. 2) respond here 3) start a new article The Fall - Chronology, perhaps. Wwwhatsup 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Things like a member's first and last appearances could be added to the Members of The Fall article. Ac@osr 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go along with that for starters - any volunteers? sparkl_!sm ^talk 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are those who are obsessive enough to maintain a detailed chronology I think it's a valid effort, but beyond the scope of either of the existing articles. It's a shame to waste the effort.Wwwhatsup 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the anonymous contributor is the man for that particular job - where is he when you need him?! sparkl_!sm ^talk 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is indeed amazingly dull for the UK's most musically innovative band **and** it's best lyricist. Somewhat subjective I know (which is why I'm writing this here on the talk page) but the article should at least reflect the idea that many people could think this - like J. Peel of course. I'd suggest: (1) describing the musical style and musical influences (Can, VU, Captain Beefheart, etc), (2) the kinds of subject matter (plus some examples) covered by MES. I'd do it myself but there must be someone more competent out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.177.214.72 (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks - User:82.33.142.104

You shouldn't go over the top with the wikilinks. Too many detracts from readability. Once something has been linked there is no need to link again. It's going to take a lot of work for someone to clean it up, and some of your factual babies may get thrown out with the bathwater. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinks and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Wwwhatsup 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And please give Edit Summaries. Wwwhatsup 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Can somebody archive the older (and no longer relevant) parts of this page? I would do it myself, but I don't know how. Cheers. sparkl_!sm ^talk 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I had a shot at it and it kind of worked - the old discussions are now archived. If I've made any errors, just let me know - they can easily be brought back here. Thanks. sparkl_!sm ^talk 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Why not take the rest of that stuff above? Wwwhatsup 21:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just have, cheers! sparkl_!sm ^talk 10:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move

What's with this? Surely we've been through all this already a few months ago? Ac@osr 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not realized there had been such a discussion. What happened is that I clicked on a link saying "The Fall" that was clearly intended to lead me to a page on the novel, and ended up on the page of a band I'd never heard of. After performing a bit of Google searching, it appeared to me that there was no clear "primary meaning" for the term in the sense of the criteria on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, in which a dab page for the unadorned name is the indicated solution. I'm halfway through adjusting the links meant to go here, but if the general feeling is that the status quo ante should be restored, I'll go through the reverse motions.  --Lambiam 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert, please. The discussion has already been held. Thanks sparkl_!sm ^talk 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd echo that - the discussion on this has been and gone and should be respected unless there is anything fresh to add. Ac@osr 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. 50 wikipedia editors can't be wrong. Bartleby 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be The Fall (Gruppe) anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.65.123 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So what happened from 1983 to 1989?

Why isn't there a word in this article on what happened with The Fall from 1983 to 1989? This is especially frustrating since these were the years when Fall released some of its best known material, such as This Nation's Saving Grace. 96T 17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point actually. I've had a trawl through and it seems the 80s history has been missing since 12th August - and nobody noticed....perhaps no-one really cares...*sniff*. Anyhow, I've added in the relevant text from the old version - the rest of the article still needs some real work though. sparkl_!sm ^talk 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What should be done in this article

This article is not good enough. It's not even close a worthy B-class article, and for such a productive, acclaimed, distinctive, influental and overall marvelous band as The Fall, that's very far from good enough. The Fall's career is so unique that this could be one hell of an article.

So, what needs to be done?

1. The article is unsourced. There are several books listed in the bibliography section, anyone who owns or can get any of these books are encouraged to check if they can verify some of the facts in the article, and add the books as proper footnote refs.
2. Needless to say, the 'year by year' sections are too long and dive too much into details. I think the article should focus less on personell changes (as there's been too many of them to incorporate them all into the article) and release dates, and more on how the music of the Fall has evolved over the years. Why is Grotesque considered a turning point in Fall history? How did the sound change after Brix replaced Riley? When did the Fall start using electronics in their songs? That kind of stuff. There are some good beginnings here ("Levitate (1997), toyed with drum and bass", "With [Grotesque] came a significant improvement in production and content, which continued throughout the period.", etc), but they are unsourced and must be improved. And there are actually some very interesting facts in the overlong sections, but these kinda drown in cruft.
3. As for personell, only the most notable ones - Mark of course, his wives, Scanlon & Hanley, Riley, Julia Nagle, Karl Burns, Martin Bramah, Ben Pritchard, anyone who's currently in the band, etc. - should be mentioned in the article. There's a separate article for all the others. And needless to say, stuff such as the name of the guy who plays clarinett on Slates isn't really that important in The Fall's 30-year history.
4. There's also some year-old recentism going on here. The information on Pritchard and co.'s mass departure last year seemed relevant one year ago, but as you get things in perspective, this story isn't really that different from what's been happening in The Fall every once a while for decades. All in all, the 2000-present section should be trimmed.
5. Also, there are many notable events in Fall history that aren't mentioned. Why isn't there a word on the Hey! Luciani play? Why doesn't this article mention that the noisy cult band The Fall supported the musically very inferior world superstars U2 on a tour? Why isn't Von Südenfed mentioned? Why not a mention on the band's early political profile? Their work with John Leckie?
6. The 'influence' section is pretty good, but could also be expanded.
7. The article shouldn't be divided into years, but decades, or even better, eras. Fall history could quite easily be divided into eras - how about one section for the punk/post-punk years (1976-83), one for the Brix/Saving Grace/'commercial' years (1984-89), one for the final years of the Smith/Scanlon/Hanley lineup (1990-98), and one for the current, revolving door lineup / different musical styles years (1999-present)?

These are some starting points. If this stuff gets fixed, this article would eventually reach at least Good Article status and be a joy to anyone who's ever travelled in the wonderful & frightening world of the Fall. So a lot of Fall competence is needed here. Fall Heads of Wikipedia, unite. 96T 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Another rallying cry for improvement, and I agree 1000%. I'd been thinking of hopping over to the unofficial Fall forum and recruiting some of the trainspotters there, but perhaps that is already part of the problem - too much cruft. What we need are a few experienced Wikipedians with a genuine interest in the band. When I get the time I'll try to get my hands on the books mentioned, and start from there. The target should really be FA status, WP: The Fall anyone? sparkl_!sm ^talk 07:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can contribute to the late 80s period, because I've got a really good MOJO article about that period. 96T 12:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have all but one of the books that are usually listed but I don't have time to rewrite the whole thing myself. But I will happily take an era if they are split up as above. My "speciality" (if you like) is 76-83. nb - The Fall only supported U2 on one date - Elland Road, summer 1987 :-) Ac@osr 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you wrote a good 76-83 section, that'd definitely be ace. 96T 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it guys - I'll do what I can to help! sparkl_!sm ^talk 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Enthusiasm! I like it. Thought I'd make a start by replacing the bloated box-set-oriented guff of an opening paragraph [1] Looks kind of thin now, and I'm not sure about the Peel quote, but I can't think what else to add. Anything missing?

While we're at it, can anyone get hold of some decent free photos? Surely someone at that forum'll be willing to help out. Anyone a member? Flowerparty^☀ 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a member at The Fall online forum. I'll start doing the 76-83 section today and see if there are any pics we can use. At least some of those circulating are press shots. Ac@osr (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

2000 -

The Fall's deal with Domino Records seems to have come to an end after only one album, given that the group are listed in the former artists section on the label's website: http://www.dominorecordco.com/artists/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameoldcabbage (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

SEMINAL LIVE

The SEMINAL LIVE LP (1989), was in fact 50% contemperary studio recordings, the studio recordings were all unique to that album in fact - and a few really good ones too. I think by default it should go on the studio albums list. SLATES (1981) for example was only a 6 track 10 inch - a glorified EP, when it was released on CD for the first time, they had to couple it with a live album on the same disc, because it is so short. Yet Slates is listed as a studio album (which I agree with by the way, it's a gem)SEMINAL LIVE has 5 studio tracks, and was at least released as a 33rpm 12" LP - yet not a studio album? Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.218.106 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Fall have a few arguable releases in this regard - "The Twenty-Seven Points" has some studio tracks, "Totale's Turns" has one studio outtake grafted onto it and some of "I Am Kurious Oranj" was recorded live during the Edinburgh performances too. But this is the only one split 50/50. Thanks to the way music formatting has gone since it was issued in '89, I would keep Seminal Live where it is, as the more common CD edition has 9 live tracks to the LPs 5 but no additional studio material. But, y'know, the day when fans of this band agree on anything will be worth a party of itself... Ac@osr (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

wot, no timeline?

• the Cake page has a clear graphical timeline of the band's membership. it is criminal that this page does not have one too. --86.178.157.45 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Timelines are nearly always the result of OR though. You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

British

http://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/blog/mark-e-smiths-guide-to-britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.225.202 (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"Well, Sheffield is shit. I’m playing Wakefield on Saturday – a fella said to me that it’s the Vegas of the North. London was always a shithole. I’m from Salford, it’s in the genes, they stay where they are because they’re bone idle." - Mark E. Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sections

It might be better if the last two career sections (1990s and 2000-2018) were divided by the 1998 incident in NYC, when Karl Burns and Steve Hanley finally left, if anybody wants to take this up. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My point being that after Hanley left, they were never the same. Very good, but not great, as the football pundits say. Ceoil (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is your opinion, but I'm not sure your opinion should structure the article. There are other reasons for taking the NYC incident as a watershed that are not POV. --Dannyno (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Lyrics and vocal delivery" section

This section is entirely about Smith, rather than the Fall as a whole. Should it be moved to the Mark E. Smith article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Smith's vocal style was certainly a defining feature of the band, however, so I think something certainly needs to be said. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's from the MES page. this was to trim down the content here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.32.142 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

OK.... but it would have been better if you had left an edit summary to explain what you were trying to do, and done a more balanced trim, rather than simply removing entire paragraphs. I'll see what I can do to shorten the section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You yourself raised the concern, the edit summary was "per talk" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.32.142 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Audio samples removed

I removed the audio samples because they lacked contextual significance, which is a requirement described at WP:SAMPLE. Each sample must be accompanied by a description of whatever is heard on the sample – a prose description that lets the reader (and listener) know what is going on in the song, something that tells them what to listen for.

For the right way to do audio samples, see the punk rock article which is fantastic.

Removing the samples must be done until a sufficient description of the musical sample is brought to the article. Not only is the WP:BRD cycle friendlier to removals of challenged material than it is to restoration of same, the bigger problem with the samples is that they are a copyright violation if they don't have contextual significance. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)