Talk:Earth, Wind & Fire

Cleanup
This article needs cleanup. Almost all the links that lead to album names go to the meaning of the actual word, not disc information. The author of this article did a poor job of this. --WindWaker68 00:13, 28 February, 2005 (UTC)

Love Songs album
I believe the entry for a 2004 album entitled Love Songs actually refers to a 2005 Chicago album of the same name; that album includes two tracks recorded on their joint 2004 tour. Before I make that correction, can anyone else confirm? Engineer Bob 09:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Earth, Wind and Fire also has a CD called "Love Songs". The Love Songs tag appears to be a line of Greatest Hits packages release by Sony/Columbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.237.179 (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; I did some further checking and found the EW&F album. (BTW, the Chicago Love Songs album is on Rhino Records, not Sony/Columbia.)  Engineer Bob 00:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Discography format
Excellent work by Xinger on the singles list. Would be nice to see the albums converted to a similar format for consistency. Engineer Bob 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Should this page have a link to long song titles like this?
==See also== -- Gbeeker 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * List of songs with particularly long titles

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song OST
Composed by Melvin Van Peebles, performed by EW&F; some assert that this was their recording debut. In any case, the film is an historic landmark in indie black cinema and merits a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.163.211 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dance Dance Dance
How come I can't find seem to this track on any of their albums? From what I've heard, it seems like a breath of fresh air from hearing all their other tracks for the 15 millionth time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.76.32.52 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprofessional
This article is written in a decidedly nonacademic style. Certain sections need to be rewritten. Bro2baseball (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
Okay, who keeps removing the maintenance tags? Two sentences is way too short of an intro, and almost everything on the page is red linked. It clearly needs a major overhaul. Removing the tags doesn't fix the problem. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

seventh?
in the intro paragraph it says something along the lines of "they're seventh best selling american group" but if you go to the list they're not on there anywhere. the sources listed didn't seem to help much either. DPM 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mis-counting, The Four Seasons are the seventh best-selling American band of all time, based on the link. And the two references, the two biography pages, make zero reference to EWF being on the list either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.233.184 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

African American R&B Band
In the first sentence, is it relevant to say they are an African American R&B Band? It doesn't seem to me to have any relevance to their music. I'm guessing the author intended to say they are an American R&B band, and got slightly confused with this (the country of origin) and the race of the members. If they were, say, based in China, I think you would say they were a Chinese R&B band, based on their location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slogan621 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band
Earth, Wind & Fire made an appearance in the movie, but I can't find a reference to it anywhere. Is it in the article yet? 68.204.47.18 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Shane Saxton?
He was listed in the current members section until I updated the section to match the current lineup. I also sorted out the former members section (based on Wiki's guidelines for infoboxes), but haven't found any information on Shane Saxton. I can't find any sources. Was he actually a member of the band at any point? Burbridge92 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What?
Why is some random band the main search result for "Earth, wind, and fire" instead of the elements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.56.32 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Elements are a group of pure substances with a periodic table to group them by. They start with Hydrogen. The CLASSICAL Elements to which I believe you are referring to usually include Earth, Fire, Air and Water. "Wind" is referred to in some cultures but most of them refer to AIR as one of FOUR elements. I have not been able to find any ancient culture who used a system of classical elements that did not use WATER. Therefore I suggest that the use of the worlds "Earth Wind And Fire" are ideally appropriated on a Band who, far from being random, have made their musical presence felt by millions of people for nearly half a century, being genre definers, still influential and active now. I feel your question was pretty high on the snottiness scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.156.146 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Needs a more objective tone
This entry has loads of detailed information, but it needs to be referenced more thoroughly. Also, it reads too much like it was written by EWF fans. 193.38.100.250 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)DP

Awards and Recognitions
While awards and recognitions of this band's achievements are encyclopedic and verifiable, this article is awash with references to these awards. This makes the article wearisome to read and grossly over emphasises the actual importance of such awards. Chart positions are good to include for, say, a "first top ten" or a "first number one" - maybe a First ever "grammy" - these will certainly help the article. However I feel that a complete list of the bands awards should be a separate paragraph under the main body of the text - not constantly referred to in the way this article goes on about the third track of some album winning third best performance by a triangle player.....

YOU DON'T MAKE A BORING ARTICLE OUT OF ONE OF THE MOST EXCITING BANDS IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!. And sorry, that IS Neutral POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.156.146 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

EWF's religious point of view
The header mentions that the Kalimba is played (by Maurice White) in every album of the band. That's good and accurate, because they were trying to mantain an 'african element' in their music for most of it. But there's more. From, i'm not sure, 1974's Open Our Eyes or 1975's That's The Way Of The World, they added something more: best described in the AllMusic review for the album Spirit, written by Alex Henderson, "an interesting blend of Afro-American Christianity and Eastern philosophy"; some egyptian symbols in the cover, an overall philosophy in the lyrics and themes, love, all is one, etc. This article needs to point that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.233.212 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And Rain
A source mentions the name as having been Earth, Wind, Fire, and Rain for about a year or so. 04:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.157.39 (talk)

Merger proposal
I propose that Earth, Wind & Fire Horns be merged into Earth, Wind & Fire. Unlike the much more notable Phenix Horns, there seems to be little evidence that this more recent horn section has achieved notability outside of the main band. Their membership is obviously relevant to the Earth, Wind & Fire article, and their appearances on other people's albums can be briefly mentioned there. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merge proposal. The "solo works" section can simply been adapted to be a "list of album appearances" section. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns meets several notability guidelines within Notability (music) under the heading "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". At first under point 1 of the criterion as the horn section "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Additionally under point 6 which states that it "is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." This article also meets point 6 of the criterion being "has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." With this being so the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns is thus notable in accordance to these stipulated guidelines and shouldn't be merged into the article Earth, Wind & Fire whatsoever. Woojy88 (Talk) 14:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily about notability, it's about the information in this article being better suited within another article. This isn't a deletion debate. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

After perusing the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns I will have to say I disagree with this merge proposal by User:doomsdayer520. As User:Woojy88 stated the Earth, Wind & Fire Horns have gone on to achieve notability outside of the main band. This is assured given their work with several prominent artistes as is displayed within the article. Therefore despite what both User:doomsdayer520 and User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars have proposed there's no need to merge and simultaneously delete the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns. Alkhi04 (Talk) 20:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK, WP:DUCK. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Woojy88 (Talk) 14:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At first you should always Assume good faith when editing User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Can't you also acknowledge that the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns is noteworthy especially due to their solo catalogue and should be kept as such?
 * I want to disagree with the merge but if "Earth, Wind & Fire Horns" is their group name, then I would say keep. However they don't actually have a solo catalogue such as albums or singles registered to that their group name. As far as them playing behind other singers (Whitney, Queen Latifah, etc.), it more so seems like a coincidence that all of the 'band members' of EWFH are playing behind other singers. And if that's the case, I also would say merge. I would only say keep if they are an actual established group aside from EWF. Horizonlove (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the Earth, Wind & Fire Horns' solo work isn't at all coincidental. As in the case of them playing as a unit with Kelly Clarkson, Puff Daddy and several other famous artistes. So one can be fully assured as an article of their overall notability altogether. Woojy88 (Talk) 9:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm only skeptical because of the group name. If you take away EWF, then your left with Horns. I'm just concerned about that. Of course they would nothing wrong with separating them from EWF if they are indeed a spinoff groups like "Bell Biv Devoe" is to "New Edition". But again, the main concern in my opinion is their solo catalogue. No albums or singles registered to them, so I don't know if they would be notable enough even though technically they qualify for a separate article under Wikipedia:Notability. If this is as far as the article can go, I will vote that we merge. However if more information can be added to it and because this page was just made in September 2018, I think it would only fair to see where this article goes in another three months. In that case, I will vote to oppose the merge. Horizonlove (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well the Earth, Wind & Fire Horns are a musical ensemble of the band Earth, Wind & Fire that also performs solitarily as is displayed within their article. The EWF Horns also meets the respective criteria for such a group that comes under Notability (music). With this being so they mirror the Memphis Horns and Phenix Horns as horn sections whose solo work comes only via collaborations with other artistes. As that's the case the validity and notability of the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns is well assured altogether. Woojy88 (Talk) 12:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The tone is obviously biased
When the second line says they're one of the best acts of all time, you know an article is slanted. Plus this whole article basically just lists their awards and gushes about how good they are. This reads like pro-EWF propaganda, not a studious encyclopedia article. I added a POV tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.65.9 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reeling that back in a bit, the second line does not say they are "one of the best", it says they have been described as one of the most innovative and commercially successful acts of all time. IMO, that's likely true and -- depending on who said it in what context -- is likely to be relevant in the article.
 * That said, the introductory paragraph is rather heavy on accolades and light on relevant facts. I'd suggest bumping most of those quotes to relevant sections further down and adding dates, most successful era (70's-ish) and perhaps a small handful of best known songs.
 * In a more general sense, the lede section wanders around a bit, covering too much territory. It should be summarizing the subject. List of members, awards and such are relevant to the article, but too detailed for the lede. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well this article merely details the career and history of the band Earth, Wind & Fire as any other article based on a musical artiste would. In so doing albums and singles of the band are mentioned together with referenced charts, certifications and critical reactions to such. Additionally milestones, accolades and noteworthy achievements of EWF are acknowledged throughout in an impartial manner. These details are all referenced via citations which are deemed appropriate and suitable for Wikipedia. With regard to the introductory section this is a cited summary of the band's career which lists Grammy and American Music Awards wins and nominations, other noteworthy honours and hall of fame inductions. As that's the case one can comprehend the article's tone being neutral and objective altogether. Woojy88 (Talk) 12:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Woojy88. This hugely successful band can hardly be written about without seeming slanted to someone. I find the tone to be neutral and devoid of obvious fancruft. In short, the tag should be pulled ASAP. If absolutely necessary with others, the lede can be trimmed a bit. Jusdafax (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Excessive Edits
I have noticed an excessive amount of edits on the Earth, Wind& Fire page as well as external links since May 2018 by Woojy88. I am concerned that there is a conflict of interest WP:COI regarding this subject which is against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntielandra (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * With regard to this matter I can assure you that no WP COI exists whatsoever. As always User:Auntielandra you should seek to WP:Assume good faith when editing.Woojy88 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, User:Woojy88 that is an great deal of edits from one person in short a short period of time regarding one subject. (Over 30 edits since Feb 2019 is a lot) My conversation has nothing to do with a lack of WP:GF, however, the number of edits it raises an eyebrow. Glad to hear from you that WP:COI and WP:NPOV do not exist. As long as the history of EWF is not altered or revised so that history is changed, then all is well. 70's Music is an interesting subject, adding this subject to my watchlist, its good reading. Have a great day. Auntielandra (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 30 edits in over a month and a half is neither particularly unusual nor evidence of a conflict of interest. POV or COI problems would be indicated by the content of edits, selection of sourced, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
In an attempt to shorten the length of the infobox "past members" section, can we just erase each of the members' names and replace it with a "see Members" link? And we note who the original members are as well as the current members. Horizonlove (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * With regard to this issue one should be fully assured that the particular section of this article's infobox is alike those articles of musical artistes that are deemed good by Wikipedia. Woojy88 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But should an infobox be so lengthy? This is a group that has been around for half of a century. There are many members and I think it would be appropriate to consider my idea. Replace the names in the 'past members' area with "see (Members)". Then in the Members area, we create a double column that notes 'Original members' and 'Current members'. And of course we keep the link List of Earth, Wind & Fire band members in that section. Horizonlove (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well many of those articles of musical artistes deemed good by Wikipedia also have infoboxes of a similar or identical span. As is the case the infoboxes of those good articles are thus aligned in full accordance with the editing policy stipulated by Wikipedia. So to strive towards being as those good articles are it'll be wise to sustain with such. Woojy88 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Legacy Section: Should there be a Comment about EWF Influence on Cuban Timba (Funk) Music?
I would argue for its inclusion, since EWF was one of the major influences on early groups like Charanga Habanera. Not only do many timba songs incorporate samples from EWF songs, the orchestration / instrumentation is clearly modelled on EWF, even so far as to name the horn sections the way White named the EWF Phenix horns. Finally, although other funk groups of the 70s and 80s have been referenced in timba, EWF is by far the most reference.

199.38.199.198 (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC) +kaysee66+

"During their hiatus, Maurice went on to produce..."
The paragraph starting "During their hiatus, Maurice went on to produce..." has 268 words and whopping 6300 bytes of information (probably caused by too many references), almost all of it wandering off topic. It's a problem with WP:COATRACK. It goes far beyond talking about EWF and gets into what Maurice White was doing alone.

I can imagine having a much smaller paragraph listing Maurice's own solo album and a few artists he produced, but not albums and awards and certifications from those other artists. It's bad for the reading flow: see WP:TOPIC which encourages the editors to stay focused, to stay on topic.

The article is a patchwork of short paragraphs that don't flow as a story. Far too many quotes are introduced. Nothing bad is ever said about the band, not even about their worst albums that performed poorly in the charts.

This is a general problem with the whole article, which has been expanded quite a bit by, and also by IPs. The result is hard to read, and a poor representation of the band. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your last edit on the page Earth, Wind & Fire was truly ridiculous. Maurice White was the founder and leader of EWF. As such his accomplishments during the band's hiatus is truly noteworthy just as the accomplishments of those band members who rejoined when the band reconvened. Why would his accomplishments during such be termed off-topic by you? Can you please clarify and explain. An utterly nonsencial edit and also an example of Vandalism by Binksternet.Wioaw (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously I disagree. My removal was for the purpose of making the article more focused on EWF, to stop the off-topic WP:COATRACK stuff about Maurice. It's off-topic because it can be (and is) described in another article. That's the definition of off-topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fred White
The section following the sub-title "Formation and Early Years" does not mention drummer Fred White, but the article Fred White says that he was one of the original members of Earth, Wind and Fire YTKJ (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

vitality rating
as one of the best selling bands of all time, it seems like a nobrainer that EWF deserves a vitality rating of 4 216.164.249.213 (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)