Talk:The Human League/Archive 2

Susan Anne Gayle

I added (née Sulley) after her name, so that people know she's the same person as back then. I felt this needed doing as I had to double check when I first saw it.

Not a problem, although it has been her name for 7 years putting it in the info box makes sense. Just be aware she is called Susan Ann Gayle not 'Anne'. Andi064 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It may have been her name for 7 years, but what has the Human League's profile been like in that time compared to the early-to-mid eighties? I reckon quite a few people coming to this article are eighties nostalgists(Like me :D). And re "Ann" - that's my fault for not cut&pasting! Sorry Susan if you're reading this! Totnesmartin 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just so people are aware, she has very recently (this week) returned to calling herself Sulley please see Talk:Susan Ann Sulley - Andi064 08:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Influence on Depeche Mode

Rather than see an edit war develop with WP:3RR implications, lets build some consensus over this. I freely admit that I know little about DM or their influences, but I note from the reference that Martyn Ware states the following of Vince Clarke:"

"We'd never met before but it was while making that album he told me the first single he ever bought was 'Being Boiled', which was the first record I had ever made. He made it clear he thought it was unlikely Depeche Mode would ever have existed without the example of The Human League. So there was a mutual respect from the word go, and I decided that if I…"

Therefore that is sufficient evidence for the statement to remain on the article for now. A further example would clarify this further, but at present the edit seems acceptable.

So for me it's KEEP. Andi064 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to define "considerable influence", because it sounds like you're saying the influence is "big", which isn't true. If one of the members who formed Depeche Mode was into the early incarnation of the Human League, but then left in a year for the other three to make music that sounded nothing like the Human League for the next 25+ years and for which they were most noteworthy, I think it's misleading to call that influence "considerable" because it seems to imply that the Human League somehow defined how DM made music throughout their career, which is totally untrue. In fact, DM were very conscious not to use instruments like the LinnDrum (a Human League staple) because they didn't want to sound like their peers (such as the League) and, according to Daniel Miller, it "robbed you of your identity". If you want to name drop bands in your article, please leave DM out of it. --Townandcountryplanning 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced. I love the Human League, but an influence on Depeche, I'm not so sure. Also, 'Being Boiled' would not be the first single Vince ever bought ... he was into his music before the League even existed (he is almost 50!) ... it would look better if there were bands listed that HL did directly influence (eg., Orbital) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.101.7 (talk) 15:24, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I would only keep Depache Mode if there is a quote you can dig out from one of the (present) members of the band claiming that the Human League were an influence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEssexMan (talk • contribs) 08:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

• Consensus is Against therefore DM ref is removed Andi064 08:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag icon?

I have twice removed flag icons from this article. If anyone can explain what purpose the flag serves, I will happily leave it in place. Otherwise I think we should manage without it. --John 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably added from the cached copy I edited from when I expanded article. It wasn’t deliberate, agree it serves no purpose. Andi064 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New Romantic References

The Human League were never New Romantics, Philip Oakey said so at the time (1981/2) and has repeated that statement since. New Romantics were a movement not a music genre, they centered around principally the Blitz Club and London social scene. That movement spawned a few bands and copycat acts. Although the movement had some influence on fashion in 1981, it does not automatically follow that because a band had some attributes of the fashion of the time, they can be labelled as New Romantic. The Human League came from Sheffield not London and formed in 1977 during the era of Punk Rock. Oakey personally considers that his style in the early 1980s was unique to him and believes certain acts/ people copied him. The girls Susan Sulley and Joanne Catherall wore ‘High Street’ fashions and the male band members did not adopt Oakey’s flamboyant style. Sulley gets annoyed if she is described as a New Romantic in interviews. Please research this correctly before you attempt to lump this band in with a relatively short-lived movement that involved only a small group of bands during a 2 year period.

andi064 ^{T . C} 12:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So if there not New Romantics why does Philip wear make up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.17.94 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• A number of musicians wore make up at that time, but that did not make them New Romantics, Gene Simmons, Alice Cooper, Gary Glitter etc. New Romantics were a clearly defined and linked social group. Do not fall into the trap of making assumptions particularly when Oakey has said that they were not.

andi064 ^{T . C} 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point but unlike the other artist u mentioned they were not New Wave. Phillip Oakey is New wave. I have the Human league Remixed and rarity album and in the book there is a bio by the group and it states they were New Romantics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.17.94 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Technically they were New Wave, but this is an American expression and a not one that the band identify with or is used in the UK for Synthpop. But New Wave, as a Music Genre is an accurate description. New Romantics were a social group not a music genre which is where the problems start. People in the media still inaccurately call THL New Romantic, but the band themselves say theythis was never the case. Philip Oakey has said this himself; I agree his style appeared to be in keeping with the fashion of 1981, but he had adapted the make up and geometric hair in early 1980 and claims people then copied him; and don’t let Sulley or Catherall ever hear you refer to them as New Romantics. In 1981 the band went with the pop fashion of the period to an extent, and this is evident on the cover of Dare, but the band existed 4 years before that album and 26 years after. There were only a handful of proper New Romantic bands E.G Visage.

andi064 ^{T . C} 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Can you post the interview or that section of the interview hear? I do we know your not making this up and posting this cause you dont consider them a new romantic band? People do do stuff like that. I am skepitical because i visited there website and it said they were New Romantics on the site. There official website. And if New Romantic wasn't a music fasion then it wouldnt even be mentioned in any music facts. Theres nothing wrong with being a New Romantic. The profile of New Romantic states that it was similar to glam rock but instead of heavy guitar rock it New Romantic was syntheized pop. You have to have the fashion and the new wave music. Human League has both. And yes the Human League did in fact were around before New Romantic club scene took off. It dont mean they couldn't become new romantics themselves. And many sources indicate that OMD were New Romantic. And they were around before New Romantic as well. As well as Ultravox. Just because Human league never clubbed at Blitz club doesn't mean there not New Romantics. Limahl was the only member of Kajagoogoo that went clubbing there and the whole band are considered New Romantics. Another point it saids on this site about new romantics also have a Funk, soul, R&b, black artist influence in there music. The Human Leagues song "mirror man" is a perfect example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.17.94 (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Firstly there is no Official Human League website, Oakey has said categorically that he doesn’t want the band to have one! The band is represented online by 4 officially recognised privately owned websites who receive information from the band management. (See External links on Human League Page). OMD were never New Romantics either and Oakey considered them his main rivals in 1981. The conversation that I am referring to is between Simon Price and Philip Oakey where he mocks the New Romantic bands of the time as copycats and is available on DVD. Since I wrote most of the Human League articles on Wikipedia and edit Ms Sulley's website, I certainly don’t 'make things. This is about factual accuracy. “Mirror Man” is Motown influenced and the album “Crash” was R&B, neither of these make the Human League a Motown or R&B Band. They are simply Synthpop (UK) and New Wave (U.S). Oakey simply calls his band “a Synthesiser band”.

andi064 ^{T . C} 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that when assigning genres to bands, it really has more to do with how they have been categorized, associated and/or grouped by music publications and professional music critics and how they are perceived by the public at large. What the band or artist may think or his or her own music really should not play into it.... obviously when talking about the Human League, Phil Oakey is not an impartial source. - eo (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just replace the word "music" with "race" in your above assertions, and you'll see the inherent contradiction with how things are done on Wikipedia (cf Halle Berry).... Nick Cooper (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be contradictory, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone would or should substitute a music genre with race. - eo (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same principal. Even if a person is genetically more white than black, if they chose to self-describe as "black," we accept that. If the personal view of the subject/s over-rides public perception or even fact on the issue of race, why not other "labels"? The bottom line is that Oakey denies the THL were New Romantics, and there is in fact no reason other than ignorance to believe that a label for a fashion trend created and fostered in London can be ascribed to a group very much setting their own agenda in a provincial industrial town 140 miles away, and one in a county with an exceptionally strong regional identity of its own, at that. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is the name of the DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was around and (as now still) buying HL records at the time, the idea that they were New Romantics is preposterous. As the page on the subject makes clear, it was a fashion not a music movement. It was also firmly a London-centred phenomenon, and virtually all the music groups associated with it come from or were later based in the capital. The Human League never were, which is hardly surprising given Oakey's proud regionalism in particular. Assigning this false label to the group seems to be nothing more than being down to ignorance of people who weren't there, weren't paying attention, or weren't/aren't even in the same country. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

lol it looks like this discussion is going to go on for a long time. Personally I think they are New Romantics and I agree that just because they weren't Blitz kids doesn't mean they are not New Romantic and Kajagoogoo is perfect example. I also just want to say I read on the Human league remix album that Japan, Visage and Soft cell were also rivals with the Human League. But anyways the real reason why I wanted to post something here is this proves that you cant tell what you read from the Wikipedia is true or false when people always change and add stuff. Everyone that reads music facts just get your fact from an actual music facts site like Amg or just go to the band you like website and most likely they will have what music genre they are or what they consider themselves as. Like my favorite New Wave band Duran Duran! myspace me at www.myspace.com/wildhungrywolf. Yamchaken (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm werent The Human League Post Punk too. Like there first two albums that they released. Reproduction and Travelogue. They Sounded very Arty and Difficult just like a Post Punk group. it reminds me of Early Depeche Mode alittle.6 synth pop (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Post Punk is a seperate Genre (and argument to this thread) obviously it cannot be a self defined by the band themselves as it is a historical label. I am happy with that label as it is factually accurate. Purests will argue that since The Human League formed in 1977 at the start of Punk Rock they cannot therefore be Post Punk.

andi064 ^{T . C} 10:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I agree with that. But them not being new romantic i dont even if they did say themselves there not New romantic. Its kinda there own fault that people think there New Romantic. If you dont want people wearing to think your new romantic dont wear make up. Unless maybe they were secretly but didn't want to admit that they are public. Its just absurd. Its like Farting really loud and then you tell people that you didnt do it. Well Good luck to the Human League cause them being New Romantic is a popular to belief to people all over that know about New Romantics. I just watch a Documentary of the scene and they played a song from the Human League, SHowed a clip of them and even stated they were apart of the scene. Only a small population belives that they werent. 6 synth pop (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What a preposterous "argument". David Bowie wore make-up long before New Romantics even existed. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good point David Bowie is the artist as well as Roxy music that both New Romantics and Synth pop artist get there cues and ideas from. Some people consider Bowie a New Romantic some people dont same as the Human League. I agree with Synth pops statment though.Yamchaken (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whats preposterous is the Phillip doing New romantic stuff then saying he is not a New Romantic. To further go on about The Human League strongly being believed to be NEw Romantics there is a cd called the "NEW Romantics" Featuring artist like Culture Club, Duran Duran, Visage, and of course The Human league with there song "love action" There is even a video of it on Youtube.com just type New romantic on search and it should come up. 6 synth pop (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is even more preposterous to think that the title of a compilation CD - over which Oakey would have had no control - "counts". Companies put out all sorts of such CDs and the original artists usually have very little say over how their work is used, as long as whoever actually owns the publication rights (i.e. not always the original artists) gets paid. The atrbitrary and self-selecting nature of YouTube means that it is not a viable source for anything, while what might be termed "public opinion" which is by no means infallible - people "believe" all sorts of stuff that is just plain wrong.

Your entire argument seems to rest on your assertion that Oakey "(did) New Romantic stuff" without any specific examples, or any proof that he did this "stuff" after or in reaction to the advent of New Romanticism, or that he wholeheartedly embraced that trend (which he clearly didn't). As andi064 pointed out, some THL tracks have clear R&B influences, but that doesn't make them as an R&B group. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah some tracks do have R&B influence to there music. Just like other New Romantic bands. Like I said before he wears Make up, Dressed in new romantic fasion, Has synth driven songs with R&B, and other black influence to them, And then you claim your not what you are dressed. And like I said before its like farting real loud and claiming that you didnt do it. Which reminds that Phil Oakey claimed that some of the New Romantics copied his look which is absurb just like Pete Burns claimed that Boy George stole his look. 6 synth pop (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Youtube also lists the Human League as Emo not exactly an accurate source is it.Philip Oakey did not Dress up in New Romantic Fashion he was already dressed like that in 1977 which was one of the main reasons why Martyn Ware asked him to join The Future which then became The Human League in 1978; 3 years before the term New Romantic was first coined by Rick Sky who reported on the scene. Also show me one new romantic who wore his hair in the style Oakey did. Oakey claims certain bands jumped on the band wagon in 1981 after the success of Dare, which they did. But Oakey is only one member of The Human League; he is not a solo artist. The other band members were also equally important in their success in the early 1980s: Susan Sulley and Joanne Catherall wore clothes bought from High Street retailers and their trademark eye make-up was based on female Punk Rockers in 1979/80 (again well before New Romantics were even heard of); Ian Burden, Jo Callis and Philip Adrian Wright dressed very conservatively and certainly not in any way shape or form as New Romantics.Perhaps it would help if you first read the Human League article in full and knew a little about the band before you attempt editing an article written by people who have actually met and spoken to the band members personally on a number of occasions. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact remains that this band has never been a new romatic band. Visit some websites by New Romantic experts such as http://www.geocities.com/theblitzkids/MENUBANDS.html before you go around altering wikipedia.

andi064 ^{T . C} 12:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been threw a lot of music fact sites like allmusic.com which stated that they were New Romantics. And like I stated before it is popular belief that they are New Romantics. A large number of people that are into New Wave music think they are. It was an honest mistake if they arent New Romantics. 6 synth pop (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any contemporary opinions that they were. As Andi064 points out (as I did, but you chose to ignore it), much of what people mistakenly use as "evidence" to support this absurd claim - e.g. what Oakey's clothes, make-up, etc. - pre-date the "creation" of New Romanticism 140 miles away from where Oakey was based, fostered in a social scene he and the rest of THL were not part of. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alot of bands were far away from the creation of the New Romantic and were still consider New Romantic. The doesn't matter.6 synth pop (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

People believe a lot of stuff that isn't real. Them believing it does make it "true". Nick Cooper (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well people like I said before about altering wikipedia. If someone wants to learn about a music style or artist there better of going to a official music facts website to find out there information because anyone can come and alter Wikipedia. Because of this Wikipedia isnt all the Reliable. Yamchaken (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there shouldn't be any problems with putting the New romantic also as one of the categories (at the end). Human League were never TRULY (strictly) New romantic, but to some degree like-it-or-not the WERE (New romantic), in the Dare-Mirror_Man-Fascination period (1981-1983). Their biggest hit 'Don't You Want Me' is pretty-much New romantic (both in musical style and in manner of performing it), and I think most of the people that were (and/or are still) really into new romantic, accepted that song plus a few more HL songs as their favorite NEW ROMANTIC songs. That's simply undeniable. And I strongly suggest to put the word 'truly' when saying 'never were (truly) New romantic', meaning if not 'truly', to some degree however they were (New romantic too, and not only 'New wave').208.72.122.7 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the old debate and replying. That THL were associated with the genre in 1981 is undeniable, the same for a lot of chart bands of the time. Commercial bandwagons are easily jumped on. The problems arise when people try to classify them as a 'New Romantic Band' per-se, which it is accepted they never were. The reason the Wikipedia ref to New Romantic was removed is because the media will try and label them New Romantic after researching the band on Wiki and this has caused problems in the past. The biggest error is assuming Oakey’s dress sense 1979-1982 was NR, which it wasn’t. What is needed is a better researched and written New Romantic article which makes the distinction between Blitz bands, Commercial New Romantic bands and those bands just associated with the genre because of their fashion and or musical style. I don’t claim to be a NR expert so it is best left to someone who knows their subject. If you really wish to place The Human League in the in New Romantic article that is fine as long as the distinction is made for historical accuracy's sake. To NR purists its a bit like equating The Beatles with The Monkeys it's something that really annoys them. From a THL perspective Catherall and Sulley go mad if it is suggested they were ever NRs. Regards

(NB Ive copied this back onto Talk:The Human League) andi064 ^{T . C} 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) andi064 ^{T . C} 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) An interesting thing to notice: If you enter (search) on YouTube "New Romantic Top", you will get videos of 5 bands (like short stories on 5 Top 10 'New Romantic' bands), and the bands are - Japan, Ultravox, Visage, Soft Cell and - HUMAN LEAGUE. So, according to some people posting videos on YouTube, Human League count as one of 5 most important NEW ROMANTIC bands!208.72.123.128 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A good illustration of the problems with this genre (and a lot of people refuse to accept NR as a musical genre at all). Visage is the only proper NR band in that list. To today’s media and people who weren’t around at the time, if the band members wore make up then it must be a New Romantic band which is a completely false assumption to make.andi064 ^{T . C} 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone I Yamchaken have returned to put my input on this long going matter of whether or not the Human League are New Romantics or not. In my opinion they are even if they say there not. Its like someone farting real loud and saying they didnt even it is obvious lol. But thats not why I have come to post something here. I got to disagree with Andi064. First off I remember this being posted here but it looks like its been removed...where you said something like America and people that werent around during the New romantic era place any British act from 1980-87 as New Romantics. That is partially true but for those Americans that do know about the New Romantics they are the only one that believe that the Human League are new romantics. It is popular belief in The U.K. I saw two documentarys about the New romantic era in which they mention the Human League as one of the bands. Both were made in the U.K. with guest such as members of Spandau Ballet and Duran Durans own Nick Rhodes, Soft cells Marc Almond, Marilyn, Steve strange, and Boy George appearing in either one or both documentarys. They did not say themselves that the Human League were New romantics the narrator said it. The second thing is if New romantic really wanst a music genre as well as fasion movement. Music sites and documentaries would not bother to mention it. I say if you believe the Human League are New romantics but just in denial just believe it. Personally I think your just better off getting your facts from all music guide. There stuff is more accurate as where Wikipedia any Boy named Joe could just add and delete stuff. Theres some people that actually think that Duran Duran wasn't New romantics or Synth pop. And there obviously are both. Yamchaken (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Grammy nominated" in intro

The recent removal and subsequent reinstatement of the phrase "Grammy nominated" in the opening line of the intro drawn attention to it. Since teh band are already stated as being (generically) "award winning", including the detail of Grammy nominations for a British band smacks of American exceptionalism. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, as the award went to Men at Work anyway feel free to remove it. I included as it was factually accurate and infers status to U.S readers of the article. I reverted the edit as there was no edit summary from an unregistered editor and it seemed to be deleting detail without justification. andi064 ^{T . C} 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)