Talk:Thompson Twins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photos Deleted[edit]

Sorry everyone, the copyright Nazis took down the amazing photos I uploaded. Starkin 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bailey link[edit]

Tom Bailey link on the box on the right points to the wrong Tom Bailey

Now sorted, thank you. Derek R Bullamore 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needed Rewrite[edit]

I don't have the full details necessary (nor the time) to actually attempt a comprehensive rewrite of the article, but I feel the need to point out that the much of it glosses over, or omits, the original, and pertinent, history of the band. Details about the original members (of which Currie was not one) and their interpersonal strife is not documented. Neither is their contentious relationship with Arista that led to a hatred of the industry as a whole. The circumstances that lead to their evolution from a world music-influenced rock band to synthpop, then to ambient and dub are far more interesting than what is presented here.

In the end, the article presents them as "an 80s band" and little more.

I hope someone can recitfy that. --71.247.222.69 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can, but I´m not sure how much "inside" stuff I should put in. I would really like to put a Trivia section in.

andreasegde 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's not a single mention that 2 musicians that worked with them live that later became part of The Cure aren't mentioned at all: Boris Williams (drums) and Roger O'Donnell (keyboards). In fact, Roger O'Donnell was invited to join The Cure in 1987 by Boris (who had joined a few years before), because they had played together... in Thompson Twins. Marcusbacus (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been important if the article was about Boris or Roger, but it's not. I personally don't find it that important to specify what happened to every band member before/during/after the Twins. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lyverbe - particularly when Williams and O'Donnell have their own articles, where such information can more logically be recorded.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's interesting that other much less known members (some with a very short life in the band) are being cited, including "ex-roadies", not to mention Thomas Dolby. Roger and Boris perhaps are as known as Thomas Dolby (I'm talking about being known, not being better or worse or having sold/released more or less records), or at least they're more known than the Twins' ex-roadies. Maybe the "trivia" stuff about Roger being invited by Boris etc. does fit better in his own article (of course it does) but to just ignore them entirely in the article, I don't know.

Photos[edit]

Anyone got any photos?

andreasegde 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Hade[edit]

Thanks, "VertigoXpress". I couldn´t remember his name... or I wasn´t sure.

andreasegde 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. John Hade was actually considered by the three of them to be an unofficial member of the band and he had a lot to do with their commercial success. I'm not sure what the conflict was, but Joe fell out with John Hade and decided to leave the band altogether.I would like to know what happened to Andrew Edge , did he go on to join another band or get a recording contract ?

Thomas Dolby[edit]

Also, has anybody read a book by a guy who was claiming to have been a member of the Thompson Twins? I can't remember his name, but I do remember I was shocked when I found a listing for the book. It was called "An 80s Biography" or something, and it was about him briefly being in the band for a couple of months. I found it odd, since I have been interested in the band since 1983 and never heard anything about him. It would be an interesting trivia item for inclusion here.

vertigoxpress 25 May 2006

Never heard of him. Alex Burak (Point studio engineer) played drums with them for just one gig after Edge left, but maybe the person you mention played with them in their ´Bigger´ Thompson Twins phase. Will look...

Got it! Thomas Dolby. Solo artist, but played with Twins on "Set", but maybe live as well. Pete Dodd mentioned a story about him and Dolby which I will put in.

andreasegde 11:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes Thomas Dolby did play with them on "Set", and in the credits for the live tracks on the "Runaway" single, he's credited with playing synths live, so he must have toured with them. But it wasn't Thomas Dolby who wrote the book I was thinking of, it was someone who was otherwise unknown. Thomas Dolby is a celebrity and performer in his own right; this fellow who wrote the book was not a professional musician and had gone on to some field of science or physics, I believe.

vertigoxpress 26 May 2006

Michael White[edit]

OK I did some web searching and I found it. The guy's name was Michael White, and he wrote a book called "Thompson Twin: An 80s Memoir". If you do a search for his name and the title on Amazon.com it comes up. The year in question is 1982, which would have been around the time of "Set", and it insinuates that White joined the Thompson Twins with his fiance, Jan. Jan supposedly fell in love with the band's manager, which would have been John Hade.

vertigoxpress 26 May 2006

I am shocked by this. His book is called, "Thompson Twin - Michael White", (with a photo that makes him look very much like Tom Bailey...) I have never heard about him at all.

He apparently went on to write lots of books about science, but I have the feeling that this one is bogus/a scissor-&-paste job. I would love to read it though, albeit from a library...

Maybe he was a "hanger-on" in the ´bigger´ Twins, and his girlfriend fell in love with Hade, but to write a whole book about it? Hmmm... sounds like cashing-in, and revenge on his girlfriend.

Questions: Which instrument did he play? (He could only be a ´member´ if he did.)

I am looking for his homepage... the Cad...

andreasegde 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I find it funny that they very clearly marketed it as if he were Tom Bailey! At least visually, it seems like they tried to pass that off. If you Google his name with the words "Thompson Twins" in the search, a lot comes up about him. Some comments even go so far as to credit him for production and songwriting credits in the band!

vertigoxpress 26 May 2006

Right; I sent an e-mail to his Homepage: http://www.michaelwhite.com.au/

He now lives in Australia, and he still uses the "I was in The Thompson Twins" quote on it. I asked him what his ´musical position´ (instruments etc. ) in the band was.

We will see, if we get a reply...

Oh, he uses this quote: "He has been a science editor of British GQ, a columnist for the Sunday Express in London and, in a previous incarnation, he was a member of the Thompson Twins (1982). " That made me laugh...

andreasegde 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He sent me this:

Thanks for your message. I was in the Thompson Twins during 1982 and played keyboards and guitar. I did the Quick Step and Sidekick tour and was around during the recording of that album but I didn't write for the band. For more info see my memoir Thompson Twin: An Eighties Memoir (Little, Brown, 2000).

and this:

I've just taken a look at the page. I guess my role would be in the live band section at the end. After the Thompson Twins I re-formed my earlier band Colour-Me-Pop. In 1982 we had had a hit with Europe In the Year Zero which reached No.3 in the Indie Chart. We had been ear-marked as a support band for the TT world tour, but events conspired so that we broke up CMP and I joined the TT. Afer leaving the TT I reformed CMP (based in Oxford) and we released several singles 1983-6. I then gave up professional music and turned to literature.

It seems a bit vague to me... Whatch´ya think?

212.241.67.98 16:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was a session musician, nothing more nothing less. Supposedly the book was more about his relationship with his girlfriend rather than performing with them per se. Interesting that he wrote a book when many others they employed during the 83-87 era went onto to bigger and better things (ie Boris Williams, Felicia Collins). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.85.242 (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. White V Sherlock Holmes[edit]

(I moved this here because you left it on the Lennon/Talk page. It would irritate some Lennon fans, God forbid... laugh...)

A regular Sherlock Holmes, aren't you ! Seriously, a great effort on the Michael White angle. If he was a Thompson Twin, I'm one of The Jackson Five. I think Wikipedia would benefit generally from more detective work on the stories behind bands etc., rather than articles containing simple discographies etc. As long as balance is achieved, and edits can be verified, of course. Keep up the good work. It's as easy as 1-2-3, As simple as do re mi, ABC, 1-2-3, Baby you and me girl. - Doh !?!

Derek R Bullamore 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonders will never cease! I got my first compliment on a Wiki page and a "thanks" on another! I will now proceed to get blind drunk...laugh... I wish all the editors could be nice to each other now and again. (Ahhh... peace & love - laugh again...) Thank you very much.

Anyway; Mr. White should be included in the "extra musicians" section if we can find some other verification. At the moment I think he´s "being a bit cheeky saying he was a member of the TTs, and making a lot out of nothing" as I read in a review of his book on the Web. Being a ´member´ is totally different from playing with them as a session musician. It looks like he has written some high-brow books, so why should he keep mentioning it? It´s not as if the TTs are still greatly loved anymore, although they truly were.

We still need more photos. There is one of Tom DJing at "The Fridge" in London from a few months ago (and with Allanah together in another photo at the same place) but he has put on a bit of weight and is wearing thick-rimmed glasses. (He doesn´t look too bad, though.) I don´t know how to put the photos on, because I´m lazy and have a learning difficulty, which is hampered by beer occasionally...

Have fun.

andreasegde 17:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Starkin! More photos, please.....

andreasegde 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

Sorry that I didn´t sign in and changed something. Sometimes I have the urge to change something, and I can´t see if I am logged-in or not. It´s frustrating for me, as well the others, but I will try to amend my lazy behaviour, as well as my impetuous editing...

Have fun.

P.S. Why does the typeface on the page suddenly seem larger than before? Am I going blind?...

andreasegde 16:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Far too often throughout the article the band are called "The Thompson Twins". I'm not sure about their early days (though none of my 1980-82 releases have "The") but there is no "The" in the name. This seems to be a common mistake in other music literature, including Simon Reynolds' latest book.

You´re right, but they were called "The Thompson Twins", in the beginning, but maybe because of copyright problems it was shortened to Thompson Twins.

Here´s another problem: Tom Bailey referred/refers to them as the "Thompsons". Is that "The Thompsons", or the "Thompsons"? What do we do about that? (Laugh...)

I have tried to make the definite article (the) small, as in, the "Thompson Twins". Nobody would say, "I like Thompson Twins". I´ll go with the concensus, as they say...

andreasegde 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think any fan would say "I like the Thompson Twins...", but notice the lower case 'the', not "I like The Thompson Twins". It's a very minor point, but important I think. Tom Bailey's reference would definitely be "the Thompsons..." as a mere abbreviation.

Album pages[edit]

Now that we have a nice 'foundation' article for the band, I think we should start beefing up the separate album pages. For example, Depeche Mode (among many others) have these pages, with review links, sleeve pictures, full track listings etc.

I already added album entries for the first two albums, plus "In the Name of Love". I wasn't able, however, to add images to these. Plus if anybody has additional information to add to the articles, like annotations to album reviews or anything like that, please edit the entries.

VertigoXpress 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the photo on the Thompson Twins page, Starkin! andreasegde 08:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! It´s beginning to look good, at last... andreasegde 17:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail references[edit]

What do I do about references that I have received from the people themselves? Is that original research? How do I put a note in to say that it was an e-mail and not from a book? help...andreasegde 09:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you can't. I'm afraid it would come under "original research" and you cannot quote information from a personal e-mail that you may have received as this is not verifiable. All info has to come from reliable and verifiable published sources. Kookoo Star 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeps and farts[edit]

do we really need to read about every bleep and fart theyve ever had? this article is way too complicated for a band that wasnt hugely succesfull.Curefreak 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, "Curefreak", but do you know that they sold millions of albums worldwide? It was - unbelievably - roughly 50 million. They´re not my favourite band, but putting in the stuff that can not be found on other pages is what makes Wikipedia special, don´t you think?

I don´t think how many times they bleeped or farted is in the article, by the way. (Laugh...)

andreasegde 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's unbelievable, alright. No freakin' way have they sold 50 million albums, I'm sorry.

Publishing contract[edit]

Source of their publishing terms was from Pete Dodd, and Rupert Merton (who was their publisher.) andreasegde 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Can we agree on the genre? The opening paragraph say's they were New Wave and the box say's Synthpop. We need to add more genres or stick to one. I'm not even sure they were "synthpop" since they used multiple instruments (guitars, piano) and real percussion instruments. Synthpop to me is Erasure, Depeche Mode and the like. Mostly late 80's bands that 99% of the time wrote all their music for synthezisers. Snowbound

I've always known them to be categorized as being "neo-romantic". I did a search of "neo-romantic" "thompson twins" on the web and got lots of links. Perhaps we should consider this genre too. Lyverbe 11:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were definitely "Power-pop" in the beginning, but later used a lot of synths when they were famous. --andreasegde 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back with the genre war. Again, can we agree with something on the talk page instead of editing the article 3 times a week? My opinion is that the word "pop" must be in there no matter what. As for "new wave", "synth", "dance", I don't know. I also don't see "rock" in there. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we follow a reliable third party source, and include an in-line reference to it. Allmusic is fairly reliable, and generally allows some scope for interpretation, which means we should be able to find common ground between its terminology and that generally used on Wikipedia (as an example, see Nazareth's info box). I must say though, in my experience, that this will not guarantee that some editors still find it irresistible adding their own opinions on someone's musical genre !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Sales[edit]

I've removed the claim that they sold 50 million records worldwide as this is both unverified and extremely unlikely (given their relatively short span of success). Also, there is no proof offered that "Into The Gap" outsold albums released at that time by Duran Duran, Culture Club or Eurythmics. Such information requires a reliable and unbiased source or it should be removed. Kookoo Star 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Into The Gap did not outsell those other artists' albums. I dont have a figure for Eurythmics "Touch", but Duran's 7&The Ragged Tiger sold 12 Million and Colour By Numbers sold 16 million. It's a lot more than Into The Gap which stands at 5 million.MassassiUK 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

What happened? --andreasegde 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Overhaul[edit]

There seems to be far too much irrelevant information on the page that it was starting to look like a fan-website. The page should really just state relevant facts and avoid trivia and opinions. The section about before the band were successful was overkill. It's enough to mention that they were originally a seven piece and to mention their first couple of albums, but to write so much detail about that era is pointless and unencyclopedic. The page has to be easy to read, not bogged down with useless information. Save that level of detail for the fan websites, please. 79.65.88.110 09:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Good work on the article. -- Lyverbe 11:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're absolutely right - there was far too much superfluous info on the page which made it extremely dull to read. The era before "Quick Step" should really be nothing more than a brief paragraph with a couple of extra sentences about "In The Name Of Love" since it was their first hit of any kind. The largest part of the article should be about the 1983-85 era, and then perhaps a paragraph or two to say what they did after that era. As it stands right now, the article could still do with quite a lot of editing as there is still too much crap on it that just isn't relevant to a Wiki article. And yes, trivia and opinions (such as saying the Into The Gap material was "more mature" - which is a bit ridiculous really) should be avoided at all costs.MassassiUK 05:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a paper encyclopedia. As much information as possible is allowed, which goes further than any fan site can present. Take your heads out of the book and see the bigger picture - please.--andreasegde (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether this is a paper encyclopedia or not, and it violates Wiki policy to state masses of pointless information that unnecessarily clutters up the article. Wiki articles are meant to be concise and readable, not exhaustive and crammed full with every useless factoid that fans can lay their hands on. That level of detail is for fan sites. With regards to the Thompson Twins, copious amounts of information about their early years is pointless because they were not notable during that time. It is certainly excessive to point out they stole electricity whilst they were squatting in a house. That level of detail is fine for a fan site, but not for Wiki. It is really enough to mention where and when they formed, the names of the original band members and the level of success (or lack thereof) that they had at that time, which should lead nicely into the classic "trio" era. 79.66.56.11 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point. The fact that they had so little money is in stark contrast to their later wealth, and is notable.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that MOST successful pop stars start off with little money before they make it rich. It is NOT notable information, or even interesting for that matter, and is surplus to the requirements of the article. 79.66.125.166 (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"which should lead nicely", seems to be the American attitude to world history. Why clutter up the page with all those minor countries, when it should be just US.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. I should point out that I'm British by the way, not American.79.66.125.166 (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thompsons into the gap.jpg[edit]

Image:Thompsons into the gap.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) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will never understand these Wikipedia image rules. Whatever you put, it will never be allowed. I could put a hand drawing of stick figures of Alannah, Tom and Joe, and Wikipedia would still complain. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons it would be allowed, as it would be your own work. --andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quick step or not quick step[edit]

Wasn't "Quick Step and Side Kick" only called "Side Kick" in North America? This clarification has been removed from the article, but I think it should remain there to not confuse someone looking for the album "Quick step and Side Kick" and can't find it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to BPI website[edit]

The link to the British Phonographic Industry website was removed, despite the fact this is the official website of the organisation who certify platinum, gold and silver records in the UK. The problem is, because the way their website works, Wiki editors cannot list a precise page for the Thompson Twins certifications because it is in database form. To access the information, you need to open the BPI website and click on STATISTICS, then CERTIFIED AWARDS, and then type in "Thompson Twins" in the ARTIST field. It will then bring up a full list of certifications for that artist. As this is the ONLY official source for UK certifications, please do not remove it. 79.66.0.236 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a reference to an official site, you cannot just put the root of a website as a reference. By doing this, it's spamming, and it's not accepted in Wikipedia. There's a saying that goes something like "While you say it can't be done, don't bother the one who's doing it"; I changed the refs to direct links to make them acceptable by Wikipedia standards. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Lords[edit]

Are they not the ones that worked on Traci Lord's 1000 Fires, or is that the Stephen Parson's band Babel as seen in Howling II? (or someone else entirely) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph S Atkinson (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Observer albums: not the Thompson Twins[edit]

Good point on the last change. Shouldn't the same be done about Babble? Yes, it was still Tom and Alannah, but it was not Thompson Twins material. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's borderline with Babble because it really was the Twins under another name. As long as it doesn't take up too much space in the article, I think its fairly harmless. Do other editors have an opinion? 80.47.220.60 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Babble consisted of a trio with a new member, and the style of music produced was far different. Classing them as Twins material would be inappropriate. --67.250.23.54 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Critical response[edit]

"Critical Response" section featured only negative assessments. Any chance someone with more knowledge than I could integrate + & - criticism into one section? 68.89.137.97 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A response is a response. No need to specify "Negative" or "Positive". -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Thompson Twins. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thompson Twins. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thompson Twins. 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:

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) 14:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave?[edit]

This statement is just downright confusing: "Initially a new wave group, they switched to a more mainstream pop sound and achieved considerable popularity in the mid-1980s, scoring a string of hits in the United Kingdom, the United States, and around the globe." I don't think I know anybody who would say their 1980s hits and style weren't new wave. The above sentence makes it sounds like they were no longer a new wave band when they had those popular hits. Centerone (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True and editors are changing the style of music often. It seems we're having a hard time defining it. Perhaps we could agree on a style here and keep it locked or simply say generally they were a pop band. Lyverbe (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thompson_Twins&oldid=1208683025"