Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain

Odds and sods

What the hell is an 'odds and sods' collection? To colloquial brit for use in Wikipedia. Somebody please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.166.7 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Suck

the above track was available as an extra track on the 'Never Understand' 12", not the 'Just Honey' single as described in the main text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownkev (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Rebel Motorcycle Club

", while it has been humorously suggested that Black Rebel Motorcycle Club have a promising future as a Mary Chain cover band."

-- Enough of the needless bashing, thanks!

Shoegazing

I have noticed that the "Shoegazing" genre text has been added and removed a few times on this page. Can we agree something like "...some people say that JAMC were an influential Shoegazing band, while others dispute that". Then we can all just enjoy the music and get on with life.

Sir or Madam, the Mary Chain were an influential band, however, they are credited with being the first such band out there to play melancholy songs whil staring down (or facing backward), and giving a rather listless live performance. Thus, they are not a shoegazing band, all of the bands that followed them in this mold - are. - Neilm 08:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Mary Chain preceeded the genre. They are its main inspirations, but they aren't of the genre. The genre keeps getting added by the same anonymous user who keeps editing the Neutral Milk Hotel page with a nonexistent genre. WesleyDodds 02:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The French writer Balzac preceded the realist movement by quite a while, and all realists followed his example. he is now hailed as a great realist. similarly, the jesus and mary chain should be thought of as shoegazing. either way, they are cited as being a shoegazing band on allmusic.com, which should be enough to add them. my real problem with the page isn't that the shoegazing tag has been removed, but that ctrl+f searching the document reveals that the word shoegazing (or shoegaze) are not even present in the text. considering that their greatest legacy is probably founding an entire genre, i'd say that's a pretty big omission. Toyboxmonster (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC) toyboxmonster

The JAMC were an influence on some shoegazing bands (hard to spot much of an influence on Slowdive, Chapterhouse, Lush, Moose, etc., to be honest), but that's as far as it goes. The allmusic biography of JAMC doesn't use the word shoegazing (or any of its derivatives) once. The allmusic entry for "Shoegaze" says that they were an influence on Shoegazing. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the entry for Psychocandy. Toyboxmonster (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)toyboxmonster

You mean the sentence "Following up on the promise of the earliest singles, the Jesus and Mary Chain with Psychocandy arguably created a movement without meaning to, one that itself caused echoes in everything from bliss-out shoegaze to snotty Britpop and back again."? This is saying that Psychocandy created a movement and that movement "caused echoes" in shoegaze. How does that statement go beyond saying that the JAMC were an influence on shoegazing?--Michig (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean the part where "Psychocandy" is listed as being a shoegazing album. Hard to make a shoegazing album without having been, at least at some point, a shoegazing band. Toyboxmonster (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC) toyboxmonster

I understand why shoegazing might not be a suitable genre in the genre list, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the article in my opinion. The word isnt mentioned once in the whole article, and I don't think thats right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoopeOK (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World?

JAMC was referenced in "Authority Song" by Jimmy Eat World on Bleed America. "JAMC Automatic: The DJ never has it." Shouldnt this be in the influence section?--Atticus2020 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Atticus, JAMC was a major influence on many bands. Simply becaue there was s shout-out on one album probably does not qualify for inclusion there.

Use of the short form "Mary Chain"

Does anyone else think that it's potentially confusing to start using the term "the Mary Chain" without making clear that it's a shortened form of the band's name? It might seem obvious to people who already know, but consider band names like "Jefferson Airplane"/"Jefferson Starship"/"Starship," where shortened forms actually refer to different entities. Christopher M 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I refer to them all the time as such, but it is proper to use the full name in an entry.

Some Candy Talking - Song about drugs?

I have a vague memory of one of the Reid brothers confirming that Some Candy Talking WAS a song about drugs. They denied it at the time and there was a DJ that defended them at the time, but I think on an interview recorded on a picture disc I have they apologise for tricking everyone. I'll have to dig out the Picture Disc and find someone with a record player now!!

It was John Peel who claimed that he was asked by the then controller of BBC Radio 1 if the song was about heroin and said it wasn't (despite knowing that it was).

This raises an issue about the denial quote in this section where it is claimed that Some Candy Talking was banned from "All major radio stations in the UK". At the time ONLY Radio 1 was likely ever to play the JAMC - and they most certainly did play this song, frequently, on the John Peel show.'

But how to prove it?

Bodmass 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sonic Chatedral gig

It says in the article that Jim played "Never understand" at the Sonic Chatedral gig in Oct. 2005. This is NOT the case. Jim had allready left the stage after a disasterous gig with stoped songs and guitars not being in tune(clearly he was to drunk to play). The song was preformed by some guy from the crowd jumping onstage grabbing a guitar. -A.H.

Fan Site?

Is this site intended to be for fans of The Jesus and Mary Chain or an accurate description of the band and their legacy? That legacy is controversial and it's worth noting the debate, rather than stating only their importance.

William Reid myspace link

The link to the William Reid myspace site is a different person in the United States.

i'm sure lots of people change being so far from home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Singles and EPs table

Hi, some of my changes were partially reverted and tweaked, but I have reverted back to my version, because I don't understand/agree with the tweaks. Let's quickly sort sort it out before needlessly going back and forth. The tweaks and my concerns:

1. Specifying font size instead of using the <small> html element adds clutter and seems redundant or am I missing something?
2. I specified chart position as headers ("!"), because this not only bolds the characters, but also center aligns them. This adds emphasis and it's quite common in other tables of singles/albums. If we don't go for this method, we at least need to then center align the columns explicitly.
3. The "valign=top" of the headings was as I found it, but I have no problem removing it (as was done before my revert).

--Deon Steyn 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. It's a question of using semantic HTML. <small> is no longer a purely presentational tag in the latest HTML drafts. In this case the only reason we want to make the text smaller is purely stylistic, so using a style attribute is more appropriate. It also fixes the line-height issue that exists with using <small>.

2. Also a question of using semantic HTML, more important than 1. The bolding and center aligning is because they are treated as table headers, which they are not. Using table headers for stylistic effect is inappropriate, and will cause problems for people using assistive technology.

3. The alignment was inconsistent, with some table headers (real table headers) being top-aligned and others not. No reason to keep them inconsistent.

I have center-aligned the chart positions and otherwise reverted to my version. I hope that is fine with you. Have a nice day. --PEJL 09:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorted! Thanks for the explanation of 1 and 2 (was always a bit suspicious of the headings in the middle of tables) and of course agreed with 3 and 4. --Deon Steyn 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Who were the original members and what did they play?

I am unable to be sure who the original members of the band were, how many they were, and what instruments they playe. Even sifting through the opening section leaves me with some uncertainty, although para 2 tells me the original drummer. I know this is a voluntary project, and I'm grateful for there being any info at at all. Nonetheless, after reading the first paragraph I'm unable to answer basic questions like this.

The opening says: "The Jesus and Mary Chain originally revolved around the songwriting partnership of its two main members, plus third founding member, bass player Douglas Hart. In the early days, Reid's guitar would be left out of tune, while Hart's bass guitar only had two strings"

Who were those two main members? What did they play? One Reid (which one?) plays guitar ... does the other play guitar too? Two main members plus third found member - this implies to me that it was a 3 piece band. Was it? Was the original drummer mentioned in para 2 the other "main member"?

I'm sorry, but I'm annoyed by articles like this, which seem to assume some starting knowledge on the part of readers and don't specify exact information.

Mister Greywolf (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The lede states that the 2 main members are Jim and William Reid. The next paragraph adds that Douglas Hart was the third founding member. Seems pretty clear so far. I've edited the section to clarify who played what. Feel free to point out anything else that isn't clear, but please, don't get annoyed.--Michig (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Michig. I'm not annoyed now - I'd just read a series of sloppy articles and was frustrated when I wrote that. It's all very clear now. Thanks again - and thanks for doing the page.

Mister Greywolf (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Band members

I added a section detailing the band members over the years. This was removed by User:Indopug with an edit summary which simply read "unnecessary". I disagree, and feel that this is useful information that should be detailed in the article rather than just having a simplistic list in the infobox, particularly given the apparent confusion in various sources regarding who was in the band at what point. What do others think?--Michig (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Band members sections give useful information such as the instrument(s) played and the time the person was in the band. FA-class articles like Nirvana (band) also have them. --JD554 (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jobseekers allowance

This didnt exist back then. It was either Unemployment Benefit, or if you hadnt paid enough tax, Income support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.182.177 (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It originally said they were on the dole but it was changed to Jobseekers allowance to avoid a redirect. Maybe it should say that they were on Unemployment benefit, but the source for this just says that they were on the dole.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically they would have been on Unemployment Benefit and Supplementary Benefit (later renamed Income Support). After a certain amount of time (13 weeks? I can't remember) the Unemployment Benefit would have been stopped and they would have only received Supplementary Benefit. They would have both been known colloquially as the Dole. Anyway, enough of the history lesson, I would simply pipe link Dole to Jobseaker's Allowance. --JD554 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Jesus Suck"

I think the section about the song "Jesus Fuck"/"Jesus Suck" is not right. There is a citation to a book, but I believe the liner notes to The Power of Negative Thinking tell a different story. I believe it goes like this: they had a song called "Jesus Fuck," but they were warned that it wouldn't be printed by the record pressing plant. So before they sent it in, they renamed it "Jesus Suck." That still was too controversial, and the single was refused at the pressing plant. So finally it was retitled "Suck." The article makes it sound like we're talking about different songs here, when really it was just one song, I believe. Can anybody confirm or deny? I will be re-reading those liner notes to see if that's where I found this info. Leamanc (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In Jim Reid's words from 1986: "It was actually called "Jesus Fuck", but we were told we couldn't release it called that, so we called it "Jesus Suck" and they didn't release it anyway...I'd still like that record to come out, but the truth of the matter is it's not very good." Since "Suck" was released in February 1985 on the "Never Understand" single (after the record comapny refused to include "Jesus Fuck"), and since the controversy over "Jesus Suck/Fuck" was later in 1985, and since Jim said in 1986 that it was never released, I don't see how "Suck" could be the same song.--Michig (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

MySpace

I have some doubts that the MySpace linked in the external links ([1]) is genuinely the offical JAMC MySpace, despite claims there. The "Band website" linked there is a fansite, so I suspect this MySpace is related to that site. There's nothing useful on the MySpace page at all, so I would suggest that we remove the link.--Michig (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanco y Negro

"The success of "Upside Down" led to interest from WEA-subsidiary Blanco y Negro Records which signed the group in early 1985."

I believe (at least according to My Magpie Eyes Are Hungry For The Prize) that ByN was pretty much founded in order to release J&MC. The label was founded and run by Geoff Travis, Alan McGee, and Mike Alway. So to say that the record attracted the attention of people who were already releasing their records under a different imprint is silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.107.13.185 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanco y Negro were releasing records as far back as April 1984 (Everything But the Girl's "Each and every One"), which is before the JAMC were signed to Creation Records (most likely before McGee had even heard of the JAMC) - I don't believe McGee was one of the label's founders.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm...

East Kilbride isn't in Glasgow! It's NEAR Glasgow, not in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.235.42 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Concert - November 1987

As an attendee of this now-infamous concert, I would say that the main article's description of Jim Reid's violent outbursts is rather understated. I have read one published account of those events but I do not recall with certainty the details that it contained and therefore I cannot verify what I claim to have witnessed that night. Furthermore, the main article may not benefit significantly from a more graphic report of the violence. However, if it takes the trouble to mention certain specifics such as the use of microphone and mic stand as weapons I wonder if it might just as well go further. Frozenwasteland24 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to do a review of this. First things that leap out are the lead is probably to short per WP:MOSLEAD, there's a lengthy paragraph in "Post-split" without any references, and there aren't many images - I'd have thought the 2007 reunion would have least thrown up a few fan shots, with one or two being nice enough to licence as CC-BY-SA. Still, you can only use what you have. More later.....

Okay, specific comments, running from top to bottom are :

• The lead is a bit short. Other things that could go in are brief mentions of the albums, notable former members (particularly Gillespie) and what happened during their hiatus.

• Maybe worth mentioning their first gig resulted in a punch up?

• According to the Penny Black article, Gillespie was only a temporary replacement - worth adding?

• File:Jesus And Mary Chain Never Understand.ogg is tagged as requiring attention, and the description of it requires a citation, otherwise it sounds like original research

• The sentence on the Peel sessions doesn't scan quite right. Maybe change to "Following an earlier session for John Peel at the end of 1984, they were invited back for a second session in February 1985)" - also, do you have a citation for this?

• Semicolon following "Phil Spector" probably wants to be a full stop.

• "On returning to the UK they toured the UK" probably wants to be "On returning to the UK they started a tour there"

• Reviews of Darklands has a "citation needed" tagged

• Reception of Automatic "not received quite as well as its predecessors" needs a citation

• Douglas Hart's post Mary Chain career needs a citation

• Hope Sandoval performing on "Perfume" can also be cited to reference #41

• Jim being drunk at the House of Blues gig in 1999 has a "citation needed", and being a negative or potentially defamatory comment about a living person requires attention.

• The Independent interview describing the split can probably be found online somewhere and linked to.

• First whole paragraph in "Post-split" is unreferenced - I have tagged it as such so hopefully people will come to the rescue quickly

• Reference #45 is a dead link

• "a new album by the band is in the works" probably wants to read "a new album by the band was in the works" - unless it's still work in progress after 4 years!

• The Guitar Geek reference looks like an unreliable source. I'd get rid of this entire section

• Would it be worth adding a paragraph of bands they influenced? If they're as legendary as claimed, it shouldn't be hard to ferret out a couple of references saying this.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Taking the above comments into account, I can summarise them as follows :

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments about lead

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   As noted above, I've had to add a refimprove tag to one section, plus there are several other places that either tagged as requiring a citation or I think need one. Most of the sources seem to be reliable, apart from Guitar Geek and the dead link

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted in the above comments, I think there's a few things that should be added in order for the article to be comprehensive

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Nothing particularly unstable seems to have occurred in the past year from a cursory look at the history and the talk page

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   As mentioned above, the audio sample has a "requires attention" comment. As seen at the bottom of the article, Commons has a couple of free photos of the Reid brothers which would work well added in mid-points in the article. While a Good Article doesn't require photos, I think we can do more in this area.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Quite a bit of work to do to get this to GA status, but hopefully doable within a week, so I'm going to put this on hold pending the above suggestions. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the past week, the only evidence of work has been removing the "Equipment" section, and the nominator has not directly addressed any issues listed here. I regret, therefore, I'm going to have to fail this. Sorry. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Jesus and Mary Chain. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821092528/http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/42857806 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/42857806

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Damage and Joy in lead

User:Albrecht Conz why would this not be important? It's their first album in 19 years and it's likely that anyone who looks at this page will be interested in a brand new album coming out.--MASHAUNIX 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. - Metalello ^talk 23:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What? What does this have to do with marketing? Why is it beneficial to leave the album out of the lead, short as it is? We might very well include mention of every single studio album they've released and the lead still wouldn't be too long! I don't understand the logic here whatsoever.--MASHAUNIX 09:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. - Metalello ^talk 11:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to mention the new album, please mention every other album as well. Thanks in advance. - Metalello ^talk 04:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a news site. Other albums (and other facts) about the JMC are more notable, be it because of reviews, sales, their proven impact etc. (all of which, as of now, is unknown about the new album). To dump stuff in the lede just because it's new distorts the article (nevermind that the contributors in question made no effort to update the relevant sections further down). Albrecht Conz (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Albrecht Conz I defer to your edit. - Metalello ^talk 06:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In what way does it "distort" the article? The lead should mention at least in passing every major work that they've done, regardless of whether it was succesful or not. What is the point of mentioning all albums except this new one? You might as well argue that the lead shouldn't even mention that they reformed, because it hasn't been proven that they have been relevant since then. This is an article about the band, not their music scene.--MASHAUNIX 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The information that they reformed belongs in the lead - as does the information whether a person is living or dead. This is a crucial aspect of the subject. The same is not true about current events such as a new album. This belongs in the article (where it is mentioned), not in the lead. You may want to consult this guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section which states: "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." Albrecht Conz (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're serious about this or just have some personal bias about this album, but I don't want to spend any more time here. Let me just say that what I am suggesting is not a violation of the guideline, as mentioning the work is not giving it undue weight, but giving it at least some weight. Damage and Joy may not be as relevant to their career as their first three albums, but it is hardly completely irrelevant. I don't see how the lead, which is far shorter than adequate, is being improved by mentioning all of the band's albums except the most recent one. That is what distorts it, because anyone who reads it won't be informed of the full scope of the band's work. If you believe this is better, have it your way.--MASHAUNIX 22:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Glastonbury 1998?

I'm almost* certain that I saw the band perform on a tiny stage (maybe the Unsung Heroes stage?) at the Glastonbury Festival in ±1998. They only played a few songs before the Reid brothers kicked off with each other and one of them left the stage. This seems to be borne out by this article, but it doesn't seem like a Reliable Source so I'm hesitant to add this to the article. Can anyone find a better source? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

*My recollection may be incomplete