Talk:Simple Minds

Past and Present members section
No John Giblin ? Major omission ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.141.195 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.15.14 (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
Discography twice? Renamed one. --jae 23:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

More focus on "In the City of Light", a marking spot on Simple Minds carreer?
I would like to make more emphasis on their live album (In the City of Light), which I consider a major selling success (currently this is referred in less than a sentence).

Please comment... H. Moreira 12:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC) H. Moreira


 * Well, what would you like to add? Even as a long-time SM fan, I find it hard to say very much about it - the article seems reasonable to me. If it was a major sales success perhaps the number of copies sold could be mentioned. In terms of its content it is really more or less an early 'greatest hits' compilation. I enjoy it a lot myself, but it doesn't mean it's especially noteworthy. Graham 23:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Revamp
Call me crazy, bored or maybe it's because I couldn't get to sleep, but I decided to rewrite the entire Simple Minds article, in order to better consolidate information that was repeated in several places, as well as add information of interest about a number of different albums. I also thought it was important to contextualize some of their less successful works within what was going on in music at that time, especially during the early 1990s. To that end, I also added subheadings to break up the article and make it easier to follow.

I also categorized the albums by date and added a number of different releases that weren't included, mostly the Themes box sets.

Oh, and all those minor changes? That's what happens to you when you undertake a major writing project at 4:00AM in the morning. :-)

--TARDIS 04:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi.. I'd say that it's pretty decent effort, even for 4am! My only comment at the moment (there may be more as the changes sink in) is that the opening paras read as if the only thing that matters is whether they were successful in the US or not. Perhaps you are an American and writing from this perspective, but in fact the US success (or lack of it) is totally irrelevant to the majority of the band's fans. They were probably the biggest band in the UK in 1986 (though some will probably argue U2 or Dire Straits deserve that accolade), and their fanbase across Europe is huge. The article does state this, true, but it's tempered with an overemphasis on the US chart success, which makes it sound as if well, they could have been a really great band if only they hadn't done so poorly in the US; what a disappointment. My view is that the US chart success should probably be mentioned separately from the rest of the summary, and perhaps downplayed a little so that it is given its due importance - which is, not as much as some seem to think. Otherwise, a good effort. Graham 06:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. You're right, I'm in the US, and looking at the article again, there is definitely a US bias that I guess I didn't realize when I first rewrote the article.  I would definitely agree that Simple Minds are still very popular in Europe and Australia, since they tour there frequently.  At the same time, the US market is massive, and the fact that the band's presence here has declined considerably in recent years is a topic worth exploring.  In addition, the critical reaction in the UK vs. the US is also worth mentioning, as it seems US critics are predisposed to categorize Simple Minds as an "eighties band," so even when they put out excellent work, it's never good enough, while the European critics I've read (primarily in the UK) tend to appreciate the band more.  I'll be happy to hear your specific suggestions for the best way to NPOV some of the material you think is US-centric.  Or you could make those changes. ;-)
 * --TARDIS 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

More focus on Simple Minds instrumental tracks
Hello, if you are going to rewrite the article, why do not put more focus on their instrumentals? 1980s' tracks such as "Somebody up there likes you" (for the landscape synth sounds), and "A brass band in African Chimes" (for both the synth work and the drum line) were not only great, but can be regarded in many respects as influential for the ambience music of The Orb, Aphex Twin, FSOL and so on. skysurfer 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's an exellent point. "Brass Band" is one of my favorite tracks by them. (And I've always wondered why SM never released a compilation of all their intstrumental work, including B-sides.)  I'll work on that.
 * --TARDIS 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I wondered that, too. Maybe they think that listeners are not interested. The instrumental versions of some songs are even beautyful. Hey, Mr J. Kerr, that doesn't mean that we don't like your voice ;-) skysurfer 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget "Theme For Great Cities", arguably one of the best New Wave instrumentals ever recorded. --FACT50 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Simple Minds-New Gold Dream (81-82-83-84) (album cover).jpg
Image:Simple Minds-New Gold Dream (81-82-83-84) (album cover).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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

an "in popular culture" section?
you could list out appearances of the simple minds, like the breakfast club. also, a simple minds poster is often clearly visible in ferris's room in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (a movie, 1986) Nnnudibranch 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Robin Clark
Robin was a backing singer not a lead singer for a tour


 * Not according to the sleeve notes for Live in the City of Light, where she is credited as "additional lead singer". Seems fair to me, she completely dominates that album. 121.216.4.206 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

She is listed as an associated with the band on the official SM website http://www.simpleminds.org/sm/people/rc1.htm but I see her name has been taken off anyway Pandaplodder (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mick McNeil
Wheres the evidence about an illness? this is a copy of an interview he gave for a national newspaper Mick McNeil interview

--Pandaplodder (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Current line-up
Andy Gillespie (keyboards) is back in the live band for the current tour. ReggyRaccoon (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

New Romantics??
The line about the group being seen as "New Romantics .. alongside Duran Duran" needs taking out. Simple Minds had nothing to do with the New Romantics, as anyone who lived in the UK in the 80s can testify. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. SM were never seen as a New Romantic outfit, even during the New Gold Dream period. If anything they were seen as making synthpop acceptable to 'serious' music fans (i.e. the people who read NME rather than Smash Hits). --Ef80 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OR
The article as it is currently structured reads a lot like original research in some sections and particularly in the section headings. 121a0012 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Singles?
I just wondered why only a handful of their singles have their own articles on Wikipedia? Many less well-known groups do have them. Great songs like 'Speed Your Love To Me' and 'Glittering Prize' deserve this, and they did reach the UK Top 20. I think this would make the Simple Minds article on Wikipedia more complete. Laydsb (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Laydsb

Merger of Simple Minds concert tours into Simple Minds?
It has been proposed on Simple Minds concert tours to merge it into Simple Minds. My answer is 100% no. Simple Minds concert tours has too much detail (currently it is 14,971 bytes in size) to be merged into this article. Seth Whales  talk    10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Some comments
I was shocked to see the state of this article. I made some edits to try to address some of these faults:

1) Original research; we cannot use unattributed discussions of the subject. Some of the section headings also fell into this category.

2) Verify! All items recorded in this article should be verifiable to a reliable source. This still needs more work.

3) Fannish amounts of detail. We do not need to know every last thing; we just need to summarise the most important things.

4) Recentism; As it stands, the article is biased towards the 2000s and the 1980s is thin on the ground. This isn't right; if anything it should be the other way around.

5) Articles on living people cannot be sourced using tabloids. Proper sources are required. See point (2). --John (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note my agreement with all the above and that what was reverted was most likely by a sock. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

More sections needed
This is a long sprawling  history  of the band. I'm here because I  came to  look  something  up  about  Mel Gaynor whom I  knew in  the 80s. His coming and going  at  Simple Minds is what  I  found out, but  in  reading  through everything here, I found very  little dedicated to the band's actual  Stilrichtung and its evolution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Discography
This section is a mess. It should really only include the main studio albums, without any details on what specific versions there are. All that goes into the discography article. Also, an album that appears as part of a boxset and has not be released as a stand alone CD/LP, should not be included. Karst (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - the videography looks bad as well. I came to this article not knowing much about the band and feel like it is over explains a lot of things or it's not summarized in a neat manner. --Jennica ✿ / talk 01:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by the comments on this Talk page, this has been a persistent problem. Sourcing would be one issue, there are two or three books from the 1980s, but after that it becomes difficult. Ideally it should follow the U2 template.Karst (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming 17th Studio Album
Simple Minds has finished recording a new studio album, its 17th, wrote Kerr on March 21, 2017. The album is now being mixed and mastered for release.

"Today is Charlie's last day of recording on what is destined to be our new album - Simple Minds 17th to date. In a few hours he will pick out the last few beautiful notes, and most probably blast out some last minute ideas. With the exception of the odd backing vocals to be added at a later date, I have also finished with my involvement in the recording. And so that is that! Another chapter in our story written, another effort complete. So what will we do tomorrow, the day after an entire album recording has been concluded? We will get up early and start thinking about our next album - our 18th. This is how we live, it is the rhythm of our lives."

Possible new songs for consideration include: Chrome Heart, Fire Fighter, Harmonize, Human Trafficking, Love's Bonfire, Machines, Photograph, Planet Zero, Signal And The Noise, Solstice Kiss, Traffic, Tsunami and Utopia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichtoll (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Simple Minds. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729033254/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/search.php to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/search.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729033254/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/search.php to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/search.php
 * Added tag to http://www.simpleminds.com/sm/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Berenice Scott is a current member of the band and not just a touring musician!
Please recognise that Berenice is not a session musician but a key part of the current line up. Its very disingenuous to not include her. 80.189.246.153 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

simple minds did not sell over 60 million so i deleted it
they probably didn’t even sell 10 million. whether its fans or the management, i notice time after time the estimated album sales is wildly inaccurate, taking from a dubious source with no credibility of music industry. Billboard, RIAA, and others are credible. Some newsweek article quoting an interview is not. Sales figures are not something everyone has access to either and is very rarely accurately referenced in public. Shhsbavavaa (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's very common for record companies and bands' PR agents to inflate record sales, and you'll see questionable figures all over Wikipedia on musical artists articles. However, we must go with what sources say.  It is not acceptable for Wikipedia editors to suggest they have managed to sum up every possible record market in the world, and reached a different figure that is better than what sources say.  That's original research.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I would safely say they have sold 60 million records given they were huge sellers in the eighties 5 no.1 ukalbums 89.184.61.146 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Rock band?
Simple Minds have been associated with many genres over the years, but I can´t see any source that rock music is one of them. Edo (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.simpleminds.com/history-simple-minds/ and some of its sub-pages. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:EA76:14DD:8E35:943E (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)