Talk:Status Quo (band)

"Legendary"?
"Legendary"? I always thought they were real... Surely "Renowned", "Veteran", "Long-established" would be preferable here?

My correction of the Album section of the article has been removed. Status Quo's First Album is called Picturesque Matchstickable Messages From The Status Quo. Pictures of Matchstick men was only the name of the single.

"Legendary" is a general term now, and can certainly apply to the living. Don't be so pedantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Legendary" might be a general term referring to the living, but in that case it usually carries a sense of personal opinion that should be avoided on wikipedia. Let's stick to "renowned" instead. airstrike (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"what the"?
i think the Latin term is better know and thus should be the page you are directed to when "status Quo" is searched —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.228.120 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. BoogieRock (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I don't know how to make a formal request for this. airstrike (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the whole world except America knows who Status Quo are, you need to get with the programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.238.150 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive neevr heard of the band, and was a bit put off that every link to Status Quo on the wiki now goes to this band, when the vast even overwhelming majority of such links are obviously intended to go to the latin term. This article needs to be moved to Status Quo (band)

Image:Status quo.jpg
Image:Status quo.jpg (the image used in this article) has been tagged as having no source information, and will be deleted in 7 days if this is not provided. Rob Church Talk 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I found the picture in the "Just For The Record" book and it shows "© George Bodnar" on the picture in the book. I have replaced the picture with one of my own. KevM 12:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Down Down Chart Position
Papapierre asserts that "although there was some dispute, due to alleged anomalies in the chart returns, that it may only have reached No. 2 and that the No. 1 spot should have gone to Ralph McTell with Streets of London." Is there a source for this? Kev (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

New entry at base of Main Text
Thought this little snippet was worthy of inclusion !

Have searched net for the name of the woman who did this thesis, without luck.

I remember the interview in the 80's. It was on GMTV I think !

British English
Quo are a British band, none of this bloody "Status Quo is" its "Status Quo are.." TheMongoose

A number of words like army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it. Thus, as H. W. Fowler describes, in British English they are "treated as singular or plural at discretion"; Fowler notes noted that occasionally a "delicate distinction" is made possible by discretionary plurals: "The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree."[4] Also in British English, names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place: England are playing Germany tonight refers to a football game, but England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom refers to the country. In North American English, such words are invariably treated as singular.

Cleanup
Does the clean-up tag still need to be here? The article is a lot better than it used to be. Kev (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the clean-up tag now. Kev (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparent date contradictions
From the article:


 * "The group was founded by bassist Alan Lancaster and guitarist Francis Rossi in 1962."

and later:


 * "Francis Rossi - lead guitar, vocals (1966–present)"

How can the group have been founded by Rossi in 1962, and yet Rossi wasn't even in the band until 1966? I thought at first that the 1966 date was when they changed their name to Status Quo, but according to the article that didn't happen until 1967. In any case, the first statement definitely implies that there was a band called Status Quo in 1962, which apparently there wasn't. The wording needs clarifying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.136.71 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Quo was formed in 1962 by Lancaster and Rossi, with a few others, but wasn't called Status Quo until 1967. It is a bit confusing when people form a band and then the band changes its name, not to mention the line-up. There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia policy on how this should be handled. Anyway, I've amended the dates for Rossi, Coghlan, Lynes and Lancaster. . Kev (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Quo Army?
So, were the hard-core fans universally known as "Quo Army" or was that just locals in my neck of the woods?

The band have acknowledged their fans as the "Quo Army". Kev (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal Opinion
This paragraph states a personal opinion and therefore has no place in Wikipedia:

"Status Quo have often been characterized as producing very simple songs, always in the same format: 4/4 rhythm, three chord structure. However, the recordings from their first decade demonstrate a diversity in musical style and complexity to rival most of the late 60s UK bands, and several of their singles and album tracks from later show considerable subtlety"

I have deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.178.222 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Mastermind and Children in Need
Does Status Quo's brief appearance on CiN really warrant an entry here? Likewise the fact that somebody chose SQ as their specialist subject on Mastermind. It's pretty banal trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Non-UK releases
As Quo is a British band I feel that the discography section should concern itself with only the band's UK releases rather than including records from all over the world. To that end I have amended the section heading and removed non-UK records from the listings. Kev (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically I agree. Nevertheless the "Tokyo Album" contains recordings that are otherwise unavailable as there has been no official UK release. For this reason it is in my opinion essential to include it in the discography. Especially since Wikipedia is inteded to cover not only a UK point of view. Vertigo Man-iac 11:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Early career
Is the single 'I (Who Have Nothing)' which "sank without a trace" the same song as the later hit of the same name by Manfred Man's Earth Band? If yes, I think this is worth mentioning. --84.177.92.9 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same song, but both bands were covering a Shirley Bassey song, so it's not really worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Boogie or Boogie-woogie?
It seems there is a ddisagreement over their musical style. Allmusic describe them as "boogie rock". The article for boogie-woogie describes that style as "piano-based blues" and boogie as a guitar-based derivative thereof. I'd argue the latter is closer, as well as being reliably sourced. Off the top of my head I can think of only one track, Rockin' All Over the World, that noticeably features any piano at all; most of the others are strongly guitar-based. And that, of course, ignores their earlier psychedelic incarnation. Comments from other editors welcome. -- Rodhull andemu  19:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Boogie-woogie or boogie

I would like to correct RodHullandEmu. With the regard to the album spare parts Amazon desctribe the quooooooooooowooooooooooooah as "making a change to boogie woogie." I would also like to make the point that their 1969 hit Are you growing tired of my love is entirely piano driven.


 * "Are you growing tired of my love" is indeed piano driven, but that doesn't make it boogie woogie. Rachmaninov wrote a lot of piano music, and that wasn't boogie woogie either Mikeholden (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have therefore changed their description to "a strong boogie and boogie-woogie line" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry12354 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think two tracks out of several dozen (and that's only their UK hits) is WP:UNDUE, and neither do I think Amazon.com (uncited) have expertise in rock criticism. I won't revert because I've got better things to do, but I will happily accept consensus when it is established by other editors. Meanwhile, this edit-warring is unseemly and I will avoid it. -- Rodhull andemu  19:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I have to agree with Jerry - boogie-woogie is a much better decription of the sound of the Quo. Keep it up Jerry12345, don't let these so called status quo "fans" get you down. |||| —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi12345 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this clear; you, Rossi12345, agree with Jerry12354 on your very first edit to this encyclopedia? How did you know how to come here? Have you read WP:SOCK? -- Rodhull andemu  21:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod Hull and Emu should stop selectively extracting information from pages. Although the wiki boogie-woogie page does show that boogie-woogie had its origins in piano based styles it also clearly states in the next sentence that it has since been extended to include guitar based styles. I therefore argue that the description of the Quo as boogie and boogie-woogie based is correct and Rod Hull and Emu should stop exerting his personal opinion upon others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisrossi123 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The genre is unsourced. There is no consensus for it. And I think you should stop sockpuppeting, for which you are now blocked indefinitely -- Rodhull andemu  13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In situations like this (i.e. a matter of opinion) it's always safest to go to the source. You can find a lot of sources that say they play boogie, 12 bar boogie, 12 bar blues, and very little that mentions "boogie woogie". But what does Quo say they play themselves? If you have a google around it's not easy to find anything definitive, but I finally got this; ""Anybody who knows anything about music knows that we know five chords. It's not three, it's five. And what you can't do with five chords ain't worth doing, really. It's always been based round the old 12-bar boogie shuffle rhythm that Chuck Berry started off.""

- Rossi Exactly what genre this description falls under is open for debate; but no mention of "woogie" and it following the reference to Chuck Berry it would seem to me to be much more a case of boogie rock. Whether boogie-woogie can now include guitars, is pretty immaterial. Boogie woogie is still a genre that is primarily piano driven and that's what most people would thing when hearing it as description. Calling Quo this is far more likely to result in misinterpretation than the more exacting boogie rock. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would cite Jackie Lynton's on-stage vocal introduction on the 1977 Live! album: "... And is there anybody out there that wants to Boogie? Tonight, live, ...". I have heard Boogie mentioned repeatedly over the years to describe Quo, but NEVER boogie woogie. Mikeholden (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Freakbeat
Based on the definition for Freakbeat I find it difficult to believe that Quo's origins fall into this category. They were a boys band playing other people's songs. In Rossi's autobiography there is (as far as I remember) no mentioning of any sound experiments other than the attempt to sound as much as possible like the original artist. Even in their psychedelic heyday they only duplicated the sound of year - mainly a result of John Schroeder's production work. I suggest to reconsider that statement. Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allmusic seem to consider them freakbeat, and we generally regard that as a reliable source. Given their first three or four singles relied heavily on phasing, I wouldn't consider that unreasonable. Not quite as "frenzied guitar work" as Les Fleur de Lys, perhaps, but they were attempting to be commercial. -- Rodhull andemu  18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although (or rather because) I use allmusic a lot, I don't necessarily trust that side. (BTW: This is their final conclusion on Andy Bown: "Pictures of Matchstick Men," the Status Quo single considered by many listeners to be one of the great psychedelic rock recordings of all time, remains his most-played side.) Your point is probably more true than you might have had in mind: They were attempting to be commercial. In other words: They were a contemporary covers band, taking any occasion to perform life - e.g. at Butlin's. I sincerely doubt they were expected to try any new sounds while being there execpt for copying the originals. The term "freakbeat" makes their efforts appear more sophisticated than they were, IMHO. Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I take your point, and doubt they were trying to bridge the gap between pop & prog; probably just trying to make a living, and it wasn't uncommon then for groups of the time to play Butlin's, or indeed anywhere. The songs were hardly deep in context or seeking to be "musically valid", just appealing to the market. I can't think of any freakbeat band I'd consider trying to be that sophisticated, considering most of them had evolved from pure beat groups. I read this as an evolutionary process of experimentation, and progressive rock seems to have developed partly from this, but partly as a separate thread in itself. However unreliable Allmusic may be, they qualify as a reliable source. Andy Bown, way before Quo, was experimenting with styles, most notably toyshop, on the Music Factory label, with songs like "We Can Help You". I don't see any reason to lose freakbeat as it seems to describe their early style as well as psychedelia would. -- Rodhull andemu  19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, my main concern is that they didn't have any specific style in their early days so I would recomment not to attach any style lable. My point regarding Andy Bown is that he didn't play on the recording Allmusic consider his most important work. After all it was Roy Lynes, wasn't it?! (Just one example for their "reliabilty". I asked them several times to change that statement, but they just don't bother.) And even though POMM is a psychedelic record that label doesn't fit for the band's beginnings. I (Who Have Nothing) to me sounds just like another orchestrated pop songs - neither freakbeat nor psychedelic - plain pop music. Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Genres again
Can we not sort this out once and for all? We seemed to have reached consensus for twelve bar blues, freakbeat and boogie rock, all sourced. The addition of "heads down no nonsense mindless boogie" also seems fair, since it's reliably sourced. Now it's all been changed back again, without discussion or renegotiation of consensus. This is unacceptable. Whatever personal thoughts on style/genre, whatever, are, we go with the sources. Rodhull andemu  18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "heads down no nonsense mindless boogie" is not a genuine attempt to categorize Quo's music, it's just the efforts of one sub-editor in trying to create a pithy headline. The point of the lead is to introduce the subject to a reader who may not be familiar with it.  This cite does not help the article in this regard, no matter how cited it is.  You can find other descriptions of Status Quo's music; how about a cite for Dad Rock?.  But just because someone wrote it once doesn't mean its suitable for the article lead. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no great fondness for that, so it could go. What I object to is people just reverting to their preferred version without discussion. So are we happy with twelve bar blues, freakbeat and boogie rock? Rodhull  andemu  18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Although the freakbeat should get further clarification as being their early work.  Otherwise the reader might think they do a fusion of all three. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quo are not a blues band no matter how many times you revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.238.150 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RODHULL AND EMU. You state that you object to text being changed back without seeking consensus but then you go and do exactly the same to my edit. I know that I didn't seek consensus but I think the fact that you seem to think you rule this page and can remove any edits at your will means that you have lost any moral high ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.163.30 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was consensus for the version before you came along. Therefore, I am within my rights reverting to the consensus position. And when I invite you to discuss here, I mean "renegotitate that consensus2. You are NOT the only editor here, and you'll see an existing discussion immediately above which restates the prevailing consensus. Please put your reasons why this version of yours should become accepted- and allow other editors to have some input. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  23:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.163.30 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are Status Quo really a "heavy metal" band, as the box on their genres suggests? I thought the term "heavy metal" referred to rather heavier rock thab the music of Status Quo. Rollo August (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction
In 1.4 Success it says: "Down Down" topped the UK singles chart in January 1975 becoming their only British number one single to date. Quo have now sold in excess of 118 million records worldwide.[5] If you go on to click on Down Down, this is what it reads:

Written by Francis Rossi and Bob Young and produced by Status Quo, "Down Down" was one of Status Quo's two number one singles in the UK Singles Chart so far (the second being "Come on You Reds" in 1994). "Down Down" spent a week at the top of the chart in January 1975. Can someone clear this up. Does "Come on You Reds" count as a number 1 for quo?? --90.242.201.122 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Officially Come On You Reds was credited to Manchester United Football Club, so it's not an official chart entry for Quo - although I'm sure Francis Rossi would consider it his second number one hit having co-written both songs. Gwladys24 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Rossi may well feel so. BUT the British Hit Singles & Albums book specifically cites Manchester United Football Club (without any reference, 'featuring', or other pointer towards Status Quo). Therefore, unless someone can provide an third party reliable source to the contrary (as opposed to some editor's [such as mine] personal viewpoint) "Down Down" remains Quo's only UK #1 single.


 * Maybe that's why I wrote "Officially Come On You Reds was credited to Manchester United Football Club" & then further clarified "so it's not an official chart entry for Quo" - BUT perhaps my comment about Francis Rossi having co-written both songs hence both songs being number one hits for him as a SONG-WRITER was confusing, as it's so easy to mistake the name of band member FRANCIS ROSSI for the name of the band STATUS QUO. Gwladys24 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Origins
In the article text it says the band The Spectres is the origins. But in the introduction it says "The Scorpions", which seems to be entirely wrong. I have now changed it so it says "The Spectres" also in the introduction. -84.202.101.55 (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Glastonbury 2009
I order that this section is removed. Find another band's wikipedia page that lists their performance at Glastonbury. It isn't like it was noteworthy for any reason - they didn't headline. What's the point - to add filler to the article. Other opinions will not be considered.
 * Wikipedia editing is done by consensus, not on anyone's order. Demanding changes will not endear you to anyone, least of all editors who are charged with maintaining factual accuracy.Alan (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with the first editor's comments. As an unbiased bystander, it seems an unecessary addition to this article which only contributes to making the article appear even less professional. 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry sinclair (talk • contribs)  Confirmed sock of .


 * But his argument is irrational - Neil Young, The Specials, Regina Spektor, Gabriella Cilmi, Bruce Springsteen, Spinal Tap, Tinariwen, Blur (band), Madness (band), Pronghorn (band), and many more (I coundn't be asked to ckeck them all!) all have references of varying size about appearing at Glasonbury - it's not an unusual addition.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree. How long will that section remain up there Ron? Why don't we mention all of their other concerts. I think you need to take a step back and think about what you just said. Harry sinclair (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Confirmed sock of .

Ronald: I have just checked your examples and none of them (not one!) has a section devoted to Glastonbury like you are trying to argue the point for on this page. Point proven I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry sinclair (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Confirmed sock of .


 * I never said section. I said "references of varying size"  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's only a sub section anyway, not a full section. Delete the sub section title and it would fit into the sub-section above (Status Quo in the 2000s) Ron h jones (Talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP said "Find another band's wikipedia page that lists their performance at Glastonbury" - I just found 10 articles (at random) that did just that. I did not say if I thought the section should or should not be included - maybe it will get deleted next year if they appear there again and replaced by next year's appearance. Only time will tell.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Don: I think the chances of the Quo playing Glastonbury again are quite low, don't you? Harry sinclair (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Confirmed sock of .

What other articles have, or don't, is not relevant. All that matters is; Harry sinclair may consider it not notable, but it's cited and not excessive in my opinion. There is no consensus for its removal. On the other hand, sarcastic additions about four chords are straight-forward pointy vandalism. Please stop it. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * is it according to WP policy?
 * is it right for this article?

Lead
Our WP:LEAD stated: "They are most famous for having recycled the same simple boogie on each successive album and single over the past 25 years"; the source being used to support this is Allmusic which says "Over the next 25 years, the Quo have basically recycled the same simple boogie on each successive album and single, yet their popularity has never waned in Britain. If anything, their very predictability has ensured the group a large following.." I suggest the source is being misrepresented here, and used selectively. In particular, it does not say "they are most famous for....", so this part is original research and against policy. Also, although Allmusic is a reliable source, theirs is only one opinion. Comments welcome. Rodhull andemu  21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you - the statement is being used selectively and, without the full correct quotation being utilised, in an opinionated manner. Whilst the hoary old chestnut of 'three chord wonders' etc., etc., is often churned out by detractors, it does little to explain their longevity, popularity, or indeed unique position in the history of British pop music. A broader base of reliably sourced quotations would, perhaps, proffer a more balanced viewpoint of their style, importance and overall standing.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Rod. I have to say though Derk it hardly sounds like you are coming across with a neutral point of view there. It sounds to me like you are a quo fan who is incapable of tolerating a factual statement that doesn't agree with your somewhat unrealistic view of the quo. If you can find a reliable source that says that the quo are musical innovators then please add this. In other words its not possible to have a broader base of reliably sourced quotations - they all say that the quo have released largely the same material since the mid 70's. Hopefully the fact that I have added 4 sources to my quote each saying largely the same thing should hopefully convinve you of this.

P.S. To placate you, I am not a detractor, I have their music in my collection. I am just reasonable enough to agree with most reasonable sources who state that their music all sounds the same. Doesn't make it bad music just music that sounds the same79.72.188.147 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I'm much of a Quo fan either, but I do remember dancing at the Strawberry Alarm Clock disco to "Matchstick Men", way before they turned to the boogie- but, as any fule kno who has bothered to listen, they are very much more than the "three-chord trick"- some of their biggest hits from the 80s, such as "In The Army Now", don't use that formula, and "In My Chair" from 1970 is more or less hard rock. So although some reviewers may deride and stereotype (as have other bands such as Alberto y Lost Trios Paranoias), we may comment on this but maybe try to achieve balance by citing sources that put the alternative case. If we can find them. Rodhull  andemu  22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But Rod that's the point we can't find any sources that provide an alternative view. I think that the sources I chose represented a fairly wide spectrum of views - I think that the NME and All Music are aimed at fairly different audiences but they both agree on the fact that the quo generally stick to the same tried and tested formula. I really do respect your work Rod but I think that bias is creeping into yours and Derks statements here. 79.72.254.229 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rodhullandemu and Derek R Bullamore here. We can't use that type of statement in an article, even when it is referenced, because it breaches our WP:NPOV policy. We would need a consensus here or elsewhere that Rodhullandemu, Derek R Bullamore and I were wrong to change that. Because you have been IP-hopping and are likely to be a block-evading sockpuppet, I have semi-protected the article. Feel free to propose any other changes here though. --John (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to be careful making such accusations willy nilly John. I can't do anything about my IP address automatically changing when I turn my router on and off can I and exactly what evidence are you using to call me a block evading sock puppet? I haven't tried to evade any blocks and haven't had any warnings to suggest anyone was thinking of blocking me - surely you should receive a written warning first before people like you make such scandolous accusations. Apology expected please. 79.72.254.229 (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you reconsider the last part of your post, otherwise you will be blocked per this policy. Rodhull  andemu  16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ROD I do take back that statement and apologise to John for making it - it was said in the heat of the moment. However I would expect you (or someone else)in your administrator role to give a written warning to John for making untrue accusations. There is no evidence that on this subject I have acted as a sockpuppet and I have not been deliberately IP hopping - of course my IP address is going to be different today compared to yesterday - I do turn off my router at night. I would expect to see confirmation of this warning. Surely there must be a wikipedia protocol which prevents editors from being able to go around making untrue accusations. Special:Contributions/79.72.254.229|79.72.254.229]] (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As Escapeorbit says above, the whole thing is a WP:POINT violation. I have no good faith that you are not the editor referred to here; if I was shown to be mistaken I would certainly apologize, but I doubt that I will be. I can semi-protect this talk if you disrupt it any further; I shall hold off doing that in case you have any positive suggestions towards improving the article. Have you? --John (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear John. Clearly it is going to be impossible to have a reasonable disussion with you without it resulting in you unnecessarily blocking this page. If you look back on the comments in this section I was making positive suggestions towards improving this article - suggestions that I have already proved the vast majority of 'reliable' sources that you and your colleagues seem to doggedly stick by here would agree with. I only objected to being accused of something that you are yet to give any non-circumstantial evidence for. How do you know that I am not a completely different person to the him/her that is referred to in the record you keep directing me to? I think the general rule applied in most countries is innocent until PROVEN guilty and it is the responsibility of the accuser to prove guilt as much if not more than it is the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence. (HA - answer that!) All i'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that someone with the position of a wikipedia editor takes it upon themselves to make outrageous accusations without any robust evidence to back their claims up with.

Next step is for you to protect this page I suppose ....

Yours Sincerely

79.72.155.152 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a court of law. See WP:DUCK. Where do you get "the vast majority of 'reliable' sources"? I only see one source... --John (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Point 1 - So there is no wikipedia standard for editors that states that they must be able to PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT that someone IS a sockpuppet and an IP hopper before they accuse them of being so? If there isn't then all I can say is I am disgusetd.

Point 2 - Look back on the main article and you will see the sources I found - All music / VH1 / NME / JANGO.COM / MUSICMIGHT.COM - I got bored of looking after that. They all said pretty much the same thing - i.e. Quo's musical formula has been the same for the past 25 years. It is not an opinion to say that - it could be proved by looking at the chord structures, rhythms etc in Quo's music - they are all very similar. It isn't as though I am saying that Quo's music is all rubbish - that would clearly be my opinion for which I could give no proof (much like your accusations.) However, saying that the Quo have recycled the same formula for the past 25 years is both referenced and provable and therefore not a point of view.

79.72.155.152 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am no expert on Status Quo but if you can get a consensus here to support your proposed edit then it could be added to the article. I'm still uneasy about it as it seems that, even if referenced, it still breaches NPOV. Others may differ and support your view. Why is it so important to you to have this here? Are you sure you aren't trying to make a point after being unsuccessful before? As to being disgusted, you are free to seek a third opinion about my interpretation of policy, or of course to go away and do something else instead. As long as you edit here you are stuck with our community norms. --John (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

John. Thanks for your comment and also for your humble apology which is gratefully accepted. I am happy to wait to see if consensus can be achieved for my edit and will refrain from making any further edits until it is achieved. However, as this page seems to be ruled by a community of editors who are clearly quo enthusiasts I think it is unlikely that will be the result. Despite this, following your apology I am happy to close this matter.

I look forward to working with you in the future.

79.72.249.60 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a well sourced critique of Quo's music being in the article if it comes from a notable authority. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that we're talking about something that is essentially an opinion rather than a fact. There really isn't room in a lead for a clutter of opinions and balancing opinions. The lead already makes Quo's genre quite clear and whether it is "simple" and whether their 25+ years adherence to it is a strength, or a weakness, is something the reader can decide for themselves.

So, if we are to include this, I would suggest; -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead. It is vaguely negative and not NPOV.  Leads should be basically factual.
 * Wherever it is put, it is suitably balance by opinion from an authority who likes their music "simple" and "recycled".

Guessing ?
I think that it's a well known fact that no other band or artist has gathered a larger total ordience at concerts world-wide. Over 6000 concersts since 1967 is far far beyond f.i. Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Bruce Springsteen or any other. Status Quo has been on an constant tour from the early seventies to 1985 and again after 1986. Even if their averidge attendences is lower their number of concerts makes it a mathematical fact, not a guess. I don't think that source is needed. Lets count very low averidge attendence - 6000 concerts x 5000 av. att. = 30 million. No other band comes even above 15 million. No guess, a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.208 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately a cite is always needed for a claim like this. Adding up guesstimates over the years is also original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow.  If it is a "well known fact", then you should have no problem finding a reliable source that can prove this claim.  Otherwise it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC).


 * OK, I shall be true. I'm not a "true wikipedian" and do not know all the rules, but at least I have red that things that are obvius or well known do not need references. But where is the limit (or borderline) for this. In pure matchematical theory all formulas starts from a few postulat - like A+B=B+A, wich are too simple to be proven. But in maths this postulates are only 3, if I remember it correctly. Everything else must be proven. But when once proven - other mathematicans can use proven formulas - and build new.

Can the same not apply to an encyklopedia ? And how about examples "Winston Churchill were PM twice", "general Bonaparte took power i France as First Consul in 1789 and became emperor some years later". Does this need references ?

Concerning SQ, I could look at their official site - or anybody elses site about the band, but it really doesn't seem necessary. Besides references to other sites can also be wrong. A pure multiplication (low counted) at least I think shold be enough. And who could have had more total concert attendence ? (and if the number of concerts, >6000, is questioned - then it's lack of common knowlidge, I think) Like - not "London is the captital", but say "Weymouth is a town on the south coast between Bornemouth and Plymoth". Does the Weymouth - centence need reference ? I dont't think so - but it's rather equal to the issue of that SQ has played more then 6000 concerts. And just by a (very low) estimation of SQ's av. att. - and a simple but scientific calculation shows that the total concert ordience is >30 mill.

I know that f.i. Rolling Stones in the 80's sold out stadium with 50000-75000 and had over 300000 at Alamount free concert in december 1969, but in the 60's (expect for the free Alamount concert) and early 70's they usually had crowds that SQ often has. But Stones have not given more then 400 to 500 concerts - not 6000 !! A Stones world tour in 80's was about 20 concerts times 50.000 - thats just 1 million. And they have just made a few short tours ever - in comarission with SQ everlasting touring. Beatles played less then 200 concerts. There is no other band that has been on constant tour for over 40 years. 6000 concerts is one concert every day for 17-18 years (40% of all days that hast past since 1967) - and their averidge attendence is well over the 5000 in my example. If I had given a number - even approx. it would be a guess. But not that they are record holders of total world-wide attendence. I accept that you take it away, but under protest - who has else the record ? I would bet 10.000 euros (or pound sterling) that I'm not wrong - and also mean that it really is enough common knowlidge. Thousands know it more then me - and I'm just fond of them. My probably greatest favorits are Creedence Clearwater Revival. (And I would like to add that "Rockin' all over the world" is a John Fogerty hit, after CCR)

/best reguards - and I didn't guess. If I ever add a line into Wikipedia again I promise to add referencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.208 (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Hit" singles
In the box at the very bottom of the page, on what basis is it decided that singles are "Hit singles (UK)"? There seem to be several in the "Other singles" category that were UK top ten. Weren't these "hits"? 81.151.35.79 (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. I feel that a single can be deemed to be a 'UK hit' if it reaches the UK Singles Chart. You are correct that several currently listed in the 'Other singles' category easily qualify as a hit.  There is no reason, as far as I know, why you can not edit the box accordingly.  Be bold !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Scorpions
Alan Lancaster states "I know - there’s biographies and interviews from TV and radio, magazines, the general perception, even from my ex-manager Pat Barlow, one time he said we were The Scorpions on TV, before we became Quo. No we weren’t, that was a suggested name. I think sometimes when you’re asked a question and put on the spot, people get nervous and don’t want to look like the can’t remember or need to think hard about it. They want to look like they’re with it and give you a quick, decisive answer. What with that and misquotes, things get out of control." I have added the "Dubious" tag.

http://www.rocktopia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=863:fireworks-magazine-online-43-status-quo&catid=903:fireworksmagazine&Itemid=103

Any views on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrod1960 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have always thought that the reference to the Scorpions name was flimsy. There is no direct cite in the article - so I feel, based on Lancaster's assertions above, that it should be removed.  However, some other editor may well find a source (or not) stipulating 'Scorpions' and stick it back in again.  Probably for all the reasons Lancaster alludes to ! It is often difficult, particularly with the passage of time such as here, to be too definite on these things. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I have opened a can of worms with this because Quo's official website says they WERE called The Scorpions at one stage. http://www.statusquo.co.uk/history/history1.htm Saying that, I can't see any reason why Lancaster would emphatically deny they were ever known as The Scorpions. Rocketrod1960 14:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrod1960 (talk • contribs)

Alan Lancaster playing with Status Quo doing "Marguerita Time" on Top Of The Pops
Here is another one.......... Lancaster DID appear on at least one Top Of The Pops shows with Status Quo when they played "Marguerita Time". I wouldn't have blamed if he didn't (It was a TERRIBLE song! and not the Status Quo of old : but the following link is proof he did appear at least once. Lancaster had settled in Australia and maybe he just wasn't available for the other Top Of The Pops shows ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haaa-UwOwQs     Rocketrod1960 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrod1960 (talk • contribs)


 * Allright, but YouTube is not deemed (quite rightly) to be a reliable source. What with videos, transposition etc., it seems odd that someone, then supposedly residing in Australia, would travel halfway around the globe, to appear on one television program to 'play' on a song that he hated, only to then bugger off back again. Either way, in the overall scheme of things, it is of no consequence here.  This encyclopedia aims to give a balanced, neutral synopsis and overview of any subject.  Whether someone did or did not, and at what time and for what purpose, appear for a few seconds on a TV show, compared to a career lasting almost half a century, is virtually irrelevant. It belongs on 'IloveStatusQuosomuchIcanhardlycontainmyself.com'.


 * However, let me make this absolutely clear, I do not mean any offence whatsoever to the previous correspondent for raising the matter. Trivia, whatever one's allegiance, simply does not sit well in the main article.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No offence taken! But Wiki policy regarding biographies of living people is very strict and rightly so. I also agree with Youtube not being a reliable source. However I can refer to the same interview with Lancaster:

"Alan, round about the time you and Francis starting disagreeing about the direction of the band, ‘Marguerita Time’ is cited as one of the main points of contention. There’s a oft-mentioned performance on Top Of The Pops where you didn’t appear because according to what I read, you elected to stay at home with your pregnant wife rather than promote the single so Jim Lea from Slade filled in. However, on the box set there is a performance from the Little And Large show of it, and you’re there...

AL: Yes, that’s because that’s incredible bullshit, all that. It’s gone down in autobiographies, interviews, perceived as the main reason of us falling out - it was nothing to do with it!"

By the way, I tried to load 'IloveStatusQuosomuchIcanhardlycontainmyself.com'........  hahahahahahahahahaha. I might have to start the website up myself. No problem if I use that name? :)


 * Copyright, sorry. LOL. - Derek R Bullamore (talk)

Damn!! Rocketrod1960 11:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrod1960 (talk • contribs)

Boogie or boogie woogie?
For some unknown reason there seems to be some debate about whether the quo are boogie or boogie woogie? As evidenced by are you growing tired of my love the quo are clearly boogie woogie. Please show your support for this stance here. Don't bother if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.125.32 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The source says boogie rock, thus we say boogie rock. Find a good source that says boogie woogie, and we can include that as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Page Move
This article was moved, without any discussion, from Status Quo to Status Quo (band). This leaves an indeterminable number of articles, such as Francis Rossi pointing to the wrong article. This is the kind of mess that a bit of fore-planning would have avoided. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * AnthonyQBachler has since changed again the redirect page Status Quo without any attempt to discuss the matter with others and has gone so far to request page protection from "vandalism". All this on the grounds that the band are ‎"inconsequential and barely worthy of an article", which would be a bizarre assessment for anyone to make if they had actually read anything on the article.  I have requested that AnthonyQBachler comes and discusses his views with others before casting accusations of vandalism, and makes the effort to actually acquaints himself with the subject matter, even so far as to read the lead of the article.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it would be best to have Status Quo redirect to Status quo with a hatnote to either the band's page or the disambiguation page. The Status quo page receives about 4 times as many page views a day as the band's page does, so it makes most sense to redirect to "Status quo". Inks.LWC (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But are the hit counts of the different articles relevant? It's the number of people who are misdirected that matter. What evidence is there that a large number of people arrive at Status Quo when they meant to look up Status quo, or status quo?  It's true, it probably happens, but that's why we have the hatnote. You could argue that the difference in hit counts is because so few get misdirected.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is resolved. Since there are at least 5 topics which all have to do with Status Quo, a disambiguation page has been created. Since the bands name is taken from teh latin phrase, the latin phrase has precidence on the uncapitalized status quo, with a hatnote redirecteing to the bands page, which i will fix to redirect to the disambiguation page. AQBachler (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The band seems to be the primary topic for the capitalised form. It is the only substantial article as the Latin phrase(s) are borderline dicdef stuff.  We should therefore have the band at Status Quo and I have edited accordingly. Warden (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I took this to RFD, which is probably the best place to have this discussion, instead of spread out on people's user talk pages and article talk pages. Anybody wishing to participate can go to the discussion. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is worth pointing out that these type of discussions, prior to any unilateral page move, may have been a better way of debating/arguing/resolving the matter. Consensus prior to the event is surely worth bearing in mind before a potential Pandora's box is opened. Easy to be wise after the event, of course.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. It would avoided a whole lot of unnecessary argument. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Moving the page to Status Quo (band) puts them into the same league as Cream (band) and Yes (band). It certainly keeps with common practice; if there is there is a Wikipedia policy for it, hopefully somebody can quote chapter and verse. Anyway, to help smooth the move, I just edited about 559 articles with AWB using this: Status Quo . Thus, Francis Rossi now points to Status Quo (band), although it looks like Status Quo. Peaceray (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's very helpful. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection
All the IP socks have to do is supply a quality reference for their change, instead of trying to argue and just blindly reinstating and then moving to a new IP. Had they been a named account, they would have been blocked for 3RR by now. Syrthiss (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2000s section
Wondering about the need to mention a game show contestant chose the Quo as their speciality. Unless this is a unique cultural thing in the UK it kind of smacks of saying something like "Robert Wilson of Ohio choose the Status Quo category on the 3 July 2001 Jeopardy program." To which my mind responds, "So!?" Could someone enlighten me on this as I would sincerely like to know the significance? Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Boogie or Boogie Woogie?
Comments Please 81.178.141.220 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * See copious comments under the similar heading above. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

But what do you think Derk? 81.178.141.220 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Boogie Woogie
This page finds itself in the peculiar position of staunchly rejecting a description of Boogie Woogie seemingly ignoring the fact that this very encyclopaedia cites the Quo's two main protagonists as being purveyors of ....... Wait for it ....... Boogie Woogie. Comments please Jonno13 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Which, in both cases, is completely...wait for it... unsourced. Nothing particularly peculiar at all, except for the fact that without a reliable independent source, the discussion is dead in the water.  As it has been for years (see above).  Still, it keeps the trolls happy.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Coles "controversy"
From the article - "The band's association with Coles was controversial, given that Coles is one half of a supermarket duopoly (with Woolworths) that has such market power in Australia that producers and suppliers are being squeezed out of business in "Colesworths" price wars."

Surely any controversy here is conjecture by the writer? There is no mention of the band in the referenced article, so it looks like a pointless reference. I see no reason why any controversy should be linked to the band about this. I suggest this be removed, as it is nothing more than the opinion of the writer, and nothing substantiated by the text or reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.139.226.71 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This "controversy" is a product of original synthesis.  The cite supporting it has no mention of the band, or any of the adverts.  I've removed it from the article. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Status Quo (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100723132032/http://www.army.mod.uk:80/news/21024.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/news/21024.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Freddie Edwards
Should the timeline and lineups section at the very least not now be amended to reflect the fact that Parfitt is no longer touring with the band and that Rhino's son has replaced him? MarkRae (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Have to say I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.44.196 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Boogie-woogie rock"?
Despite its use in the (anonymous) BBC Obituary for Rick Parfitt, I have never before heard of the genre of music "boogie-woogie rock". Happy to see someone define what this might be, but I suspect it has nothing to do with boogie-woogie. Status Quo were prime exponents of boogie rock which is well defined, fully understood and has its own article. Several previous discussions of this topic above. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, there seems to be one user who is obsessive about this. I suggest removing the reference as there is not widespread acceptance of them as exponents of this supposed genre.  Peteinterpol (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Would the anon Virgin Media IP editor, based in Belfast, like to explain? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There are endless references to status quo being famous for their brand of boogie-woogie rock. Just type in status quo boogie woogie to Google and you will see absolutely loads of websites all writing what looks like the same press release which suggests that the band or people closely related to the band released that info themselves which many reputable sites have then used. There are also other entirely separate references to quo playing boogie woogie rock. For example the week known music website contact music here under the heading 'Rick Parfitt back rocking soon ...' refers to the quit as a legendary UK boogie woogie rock band.' Nuff said I think.

Here's the contact music link - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.contactmusic.com/amp/53887?client=ms-android-samsung


 * You've just linked to an outdated Wikipedia mirror site? Please provide another of your "endless references" as a link here. Thanks. And why not explain to us what "boogie-woogie rock" actually is? And please sign your posts.Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what a Wikipedia mirror site is but you can see from the link address that it is a contact music site so not sure what you are seeing.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/status-quo-guitarist-rick-parfitt-9511579.amp&ved=0ahUKEwj8wr6DzpDRAhXHiRoKHXAUCpQQFghZMBA&usg=AFQjCNELeiYzcc8n2EwXIjHA45mTqgV1Kw&sig2=PMvWhIjTZmrsO3UHtU4UkA

www.hurriyetdailynews.com/status-quo-guitarist-rick-parfitt-dies-at-68.aspx%3FpageID%3D517%26nID%3D107713%26NewsCatID%3D383&ved=0ahUKEwj8wr6DzpDRAhXHiRoKHXAUCpQQFghdMBE&usg=AFQjCNERJyGy50OMK-PEYmMUJyDcC1goUw&sig2=f45tAyUPQRaStLuv8dFy7Q

www.music-news.com/news/UK/102402/news&ved=0ahUKEwiJvuO-zpDRAhWBtRoKHW81B8E4ChAWCCUwAw&usg=AFQjCNEfnll1n0YFj1pFBrUphLHTxgMDJg&sig2=89s2x4fED3aGBBP8qwwqqg

www.leehawkins.com/NoFrames/Reviews/aug03.htm&ved=0ahUKEwiP8Y_WzpDRAhVJbBoKHQkXCdw4FBAWCBswAQ&usg=AFQjCNGNZ0-hrRpvHX_L5X2uUkYBAvUxhg&sig2=InnMT-Kd-K3_tVQuE7I54Q

www.worldnewsfeed.co.uk/uk-news/england/rick-parfitt-rock-world-pays-tribute-to-status-quo-guitarist/&ved=0ahUKEwiP8Y_WzpDRAhVJbBoKHQkXCdw4FBAWCB0wAg&usg=AFQjCNGlgboneXIAYm9SMGVJWKSAuMBWZA&sig2=fJl8vjaVvPEhrUPBuGgrw

Status Quo guitarist Rick Parfitt dies aged 68 | News | 101 WIXX - WIXX.com

http://wsau.com/news/articles/2016/dec/24/status-quo-guitarist-rick-parfitt-dies-aged-68/&ved=0ahUKEwiP8Y_WzpDRAhVJbBoKHQkXCdw4FBAWCCQwBA&usg=AFQjCNEhYHHxLMSJXngJNIlDgVkLVutVag&sig2=WMwshecK7-7h5tgOTG80Bw

Shall I continue?

And in terms of what boogie woogie rock is - it's the genre of music that status quo play according to many websites.


 * Only one of your links works - and that one, for wsau.com, says: "This is not the page you were looking for." You might find it useful to find out what a "Wikipedia mirror site" is. Your explanation of what constitutes "boogie-woogie rock" is a useless circularity. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. do you know how to sign your posts?

https://www.guitarmasterclass.net/ls/Status-Quo-Style/

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/status-quo-guitarist-rick-parfitt-dies-at-68.aspx?pageID=549&nID=107713&NewsCatID=383

http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/58097-bbc-rick-parfitt-rock-world-pays-tribute-to-status-quo-guitarist/

http://www.worldnewsfeed.co.uk/uk-news/england/rick-parfitt-rock-world-pays-tribute-to-status-quo-guitarist-2/

http://benews.org/rick-parfitt-rock-world-pays-tribute-to-status-quo-guitarist/

https://www.jerseypeeps.com/rick-parfitt-rock-world-pays-tribute-to-status-quo-guitarist/

http://rockandrollparadise.com/rick-parfitt-122016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.44.196 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you know what " Wikipedia mirror site" means? There is now a consensus at this article that "Boogie-woogie" rock (whatever that might be) is inappropriate here. Your continued additions of this invented genre are likely to be treated as vandalism and as a result you may be blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. do you know how to sign your posts yet?

LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.44.196 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Richie Malone as a full member
He's now replaced Parfitt on the band's official lineup page (http://www.statusquo.co.uk/quo.htm#.WLE5fvkrLIU). SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Andy Bown
The personnel & timeline presents Andy as having just appeared on the Quo scene in 1982, when in reality he was a de facto band member from at least 1977 & Rockin' All Over The World. Arguably, even the tour of 1976 should be included as he appears on the Live! album recorded late that year. His first appearance on record for Quo was back in 1973 on Hello! but nobody would claim he was anything other than a guest musician at that point. However, he has been a member of the live band from '76 & the studio band from '77 - that is the reality as outlined on the personnel details for the respective album releases on this very site. Gwladys24 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Primary image
The new pic (File:Status Quo live at Partille Arena, 2017-04-22.jpg) is great, and definitely deserves to be in the article, but is anyone in favour of reverting back to the older image (File:Status quo 2005.jpg)? My reasoning being it's more representative of the band's most enduring lineup (Rossi, Parfitt, Bown and Rhino) - I think it's more representative to at least have a picture including Parfitt given his importance and longevity with the band. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Boogie or boogie woogie rock
Thoughts please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.90.138 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There's already a section on this page about this. See above.  Peteinterpol (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Strangers in America
The main reason for this band failing to score with mass audiences in the US, during their peak years in the 1970s, while they became household names just about everywhere else, is that they were too hard, too uncompromising and abrasive, too unwilling to give their music a cute soft-pop edge or bring in studio trickery, synths etc. The same could be said about Deep Purple, Motörhead or The Clash during the same decade. All of them became iconic in many other countries but remained fairly unknown in the US, at least up till 1980. Too hard, focused and unyielding for the AOR and teenybopper crowds. (Also, their live act has always been even better than their studio albums).80.216.104.17 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency over time of Parfitt's induction
"Shortly after Parfitt's recruitment, in August 1967, the band officially became The Status Quo."

"In January 1968, the group released the psychedelic-flavoured "Pictures of Matchstick Men". Rick Parfitt was invited to join the band just as the song hit the UK Singles Chart.."

I don't mind which, but it can't be both. Harfarhs (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this myself and have addressed it. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Rationale for hits mentioned in the lead
What’s the rationale for the hits mentioned in the lead? While "Rockin' All Over The World" (no. 3 in 1977), "Whatever You Want" (no. 4 in 1979) and "In the Army Now" (no. 2 in 1986) are certainly among the band’s most famous songs, why no mention of their 1975 no. 1 "Down Down", a bigger hit than all of them, or "Marguerita Time" (no. 3 in 1983), "What You're Proposing" (no. 2 in 1980) or "The Anniversary Waltz - Part One" (no. 2 in 1990). Perhaps these aren’t generally as well known as the three currently in the lead, but that’s impossible to determine or source - they should be mentioned with the others as they equalled (and in Down Down’s case bettered) the chart positions. What do we think?Humbledaisy (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go simply by chart position. I'm not sure how many are required. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Boogie or Boogie Woogie rock
Please can someone explain why the well known boogie woogie rock outfit status quo are being referred to a boogie rock band?81.99.91.177 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi IP:81. Did you see the discussion thread above, opened by User:Rodhullandemu, at 19:19 on 21 December 2008? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That simply proves Martin that this question is one that concerns many people. Surely worth a long and detailed conversation? 81.99.91.177 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I can count at least six people. If we include the red linked socks, that is. Over the space of 12 years. Hardly a stampede, I'd say. But hey, thanks for getting on first name-terms already, IP:81. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Step back and think about what you have just said Martin. Would you say it is normal for the same subject to be raised 4 or 5 times on one article’s talk page? I hardly think so. That is especially the case bearing in mind the relative obscurity of the Quo on the worldwide stage, 81.99.91.177 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4 or 5? I'm not really seeing much of substance in the other threads above. Boogie-woogie? That was "... a music genre that became popular during the late 1920s, developed in African-American communities in the 1870s" wasn't it? Like this guy, yes? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * The Official UK Charts Company goes with "boogie rock", for what it's worth: see here. JezGrove (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Martin - I have always had a lot of respect for your work but on this occasion I really don’t know what you are rambling on about. Let’s just agree to change the description to Boogie Woogie Rock and end this controversy once and for all. I think many readers of this article will be glad to finally not have to keep asking themselves whether the Quo are Boogie or Boogie Woogie rock. 81.99.91.177 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Awww, I am deeply touched. I'd suggest a RfC. As Jez points out, they are a UK band. That Rossi bloke, apparently he's from Forest Hill, not Chicago? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AllMusic has "hard boogie rock": . JezGrove (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, that should have been "heavy boogie rock". JezGrove (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And, by way of contrast, here's some hard boogie-woogie, from Swiss pianist Marc Anderegg, in 2011. Very good it is, too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC) ... and you can see how hard it is, because of those lower octave hammers jumping out in sympathy with the main melody?
 * The Wikipedia List of boogie woogie musicians contains very few non-piano players. JezGrove (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And very few from Woking, Surrey. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've not looked at the archive, but as this talk page stands right now this issue has been raised on seven previous occasions (i.e. not counting this one): "Boogie or Boogie-Woogie" (December 2008); "Genres again" (May 2009); "Boogie or boogie woogie" (April 2011); "Boogie or Boogie Woogie" (April 2014); "Boogie Woogie" (May 2014); "Boogie -woogie rock?" (December 2016); and "Boogie or boogie woogie rock" (October 2017). So I think it's fair to say that a "long and detailed discussion" has been had! JezGrove (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Personnel box
I understand not wanting to have every past member in it. However, I propose handling it like it was done on the Asia page, where John Wetton and Steve Howe get a special mention. Reason? Well, it's kind of obvious. Rick Parfitt was in the band for almost fifty years. Along with Rossi, he was the public face, arguably the more notorious one (due to his love of TV shows and sadly, also his lifestyle and resulting health problems). I would go even further and make a point that Alan Lancaster and John Coghlan also deserve a mention in the infobox, given that they were part of the band during their most successful period. Also, this line-up was so significant (and is still seen as such by big slices of the fandom) that there were two reunion tours in 2013 and 2014.Jules TH 16 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Personnel section - year of deaths
Seeing as though has been reverting my edits and that there has been no discussion here indicating consensus against it, what do people think of including the year of deaths of band members in the personnel section? I had made the original edit in the wake of the news today of Alan Lancaster's passing, and was surprised that the (small) detail also wasn't included for Rick Parfitt and Jess Jaworski. It's hardly a controversial addition, given that it's standard practice in other band pages to acknowledge the year of a band member's passing (i.e. The Rolling Stones, which had only recently been updated without issue in the wake of the passing of Charlie Watts), and for obvious reasons indicates that there's zero possibility of the band member ever rejoining. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So you've been reverted three times, but you've added it a fourth time because there's no discussion about it? That's not how it works.  The responsibility to start the discussion is yours, .  Please revert your edit and stop edit warring.
 * The problem with adding this information is;
 * The date of their death often has nothing to do with the band.  I can see how it may be considered relevant for Parfit, but not Jaworski and Lancaster, who haven't been members for years.
 * Indicating that there's "zero possibility of the band member ever rejoining" is equally suggesting that those not dead may rejoin, which is entirely speculation. It's not for Wikipedia to decide when it stops being a possibility, when there could well have been zero possibility of them ever rejoining even when they were alive.
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, no - after I started this discussion Editstu went ahead and added it back, not me (though for completist sake, I added on Jaworski, which I assume Edistu merely overlooked). The last revert was reverting LéKashmiriSocialiste's edit, which only removed Lancaster's but not Parfitt or Jaworski. Please do not mislead people by accusing me of "edit warring". As for the rest, there's really not much else for me to add beyond what I already said - that it's common practice on band pages to include this small detail on Personnel sections (other examples beyond the Stones include The Who, The Moody Blues, King Crimson, Motörhead, etc.), something that is reflected by how I'm evidently not the only person who has made the edit so far. It just seems like such a minor detail to gatekeep over given that it makes zero difference to the overall substance to the article; and I again emphasise that before this discussion there had been no consensus here against inclusion. It was merely self-imposed by you, and you would not have invoked WP:BRD if you didn't have a personal gripe with it. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to demonstrate previous consensus against something to challenge it, that would be ridiculous. And once it has been challenged, the lack of a prior consensus does not negate the challenge.  You added something, it has been challenged.  You went on to restore it, or parts of it, three times before any discussion had occurred.  That's the sum of it and edit warring.  For a minor edit, you are the one making a greatest deal out of it, and the one "self-imposing".  I've explained my reasons, two of these dates have nothing to do with Quo membership, and are distracting clutter. What occurs on other articles is of note, but does not mean that this article needs to make the same error. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Escape Orbit. It might have been relevant if Lancaster had still been in the band. Compare e.g. Yes (band). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking again at Yes, I see we actually have "Peter Banks – guitar, backing vocals (1968–1970, died 2013)" Which may not be so disruptive. Better there than in the infobox, at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Image
I really think the infobox image should be their current line-up - the image in this article's "2014–present" section would work nicely. Rossi and Parfitt are what people think of when they think of Quo, yes, but they are still an active band who have now issued an album without Parfitt and continue to tour. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The Scorpions again
I recently visited the "Celebrating Seven Decades of Quo" exhibition at the Barbican Library. Quoting from one of the exhibition captions:

Along with the interview with Alan Lancaster from the section above I think that's enough to remove the reference to The Scorpions. the wub "?!"  16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)