Talk:Talk Talk

Friese-Greene
Sorry, but although Tim Friese-Greene's contributions to the band are undeniable, he was not an official member!

Title
And the award for the world's best titled Wikipedia page goes to... this one! --Robdurbar 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, here. Although for counter balance, political correctness and NPOV should there not be one entitled Silence: Silence Silence ?!


 * Derek R Bullamore 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this one? [] Jodamu 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Hollis has a nice house on Wimbeldon. But he lived in Suffolk in mid 80's. He went back to London early 90's so his kids could learn the real live. 85.191.48.191 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only Talk:Talk Talk Talk, but also Talk:Talk 112.198.163.235 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Punk Band the Reaction
On the Beggars Banquet punk compilation Streets (punk album) there's a song called "Talk Talk Talk Talk" by a band called the Reaction. It seems to be the same song as "Talk Talk" and the track was produced by Ed "Eddie and the Hot Rods" Hollis, Mark Hollis's brother. Seems pretty obvious that the Talk Talk grew out of, or was, the Reaction, as this was Mark Hollis' first band. 192.58.204.226 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC) naznomad 1 September, 2009

Breakup and aftermath
Can't see any reference on the linked Lights page to Talk Talk being an influence on her. Consider removing?--Frank poulankh (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a -template in the hope someone will know of a reliable source for the info. Mark in wiki (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Page move
In my openion the page move is not ideal and seems overly concerneded with convention and anti common sense. I'd like to reverse it, but it would be now over a redirect, so would need admin super powers. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of my reasoning behind this was some changes I am in the process of making to TalkTalk Group articles. I will redirect the page TalkTalk and away from the disambiguation page back to this page, it was just to try and avoid any confusion. Mark999 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have added to the confusion, inadvertaintly. The band is far more notable than the low turnover start up companies you have equated, please revert. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. If someone searches for "Talk Talk", that should lead them to the page about the band (with a disambiguation link on the top of the page for other pages with similar titles). The band is by far the most notable of all the items listed on the page Talk Talk (disambiguation). Please revert the move. Mark in wiki (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: withdrawn as premature. As pointed out by Noetica, the band-and-company (also "talk talk"/"Talk Talk") situation is messy. We will be taking this situation first in WT:disambiguation, so someone knows what to do there. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk Talk (band) → Talk Talk – Somehow, no other topics surpass the band "Talk Talk" from UK. Not even Talk Talk (novel) or TalkTalk Group. I don't know why disambiguating it is necessary, so disambiguating the band is pointless. The past discussions above proves that disambiguating the topic is pointless. --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, someone objects:

I think this person has this wrong: "Talk Talk" is redirected to the band... well, I redirected "" from the disambiguation to the band for easier use. --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – it's better to go the other way, and move Talk Talk (disambiguation) to Talk Talk; the title is very ambiguous.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks very ambiguous, and it is hard to counter that point because "Talk Talk" may not exactly mean the band. However, we are discussing the present, and we have 600-800 view per day, and the band received the same views in December 2011. TalkTalk Group might succeed or fail to challenge the band, but right now the band is the top of all topics with same name. In the future, we must wait for future challenges. See Talk:Anne Hathaway. --George Ho (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose mere rule-following that entirely ignores the needs of readers, which can be met with consummate ease by including seven extra characters, including the space: " (band)" . Note for George Ho: the very same breathtaking defiance of rationality was successful at Talk:Anne Hathaway. Just look at the supervote with which the thing was closed; and look at my clear, detailed argument which was entirely ignored. I support Dicklyon's reversion of George Ho's alteration of Talk talk; Dicklyon's reversion restores the status quo: it again redirects to the DAB page Talk Talk (disambiguation). Quite clearly it should be the DAB page. Note also the page Talk Talk (both words capped). That currently redirects to Talk Talk (band). George, it is tendentious and inflammatory to make such changes unilaterally, especially when an RM discussion is in progress. Improve a DAB page, add to a DAB page – but don't change redirects like that. The situation with the whole suite of articles (DAB, redirects with various capitalisations, and so on) is a complete mess. It is unhelpful to request a move without making clear the situation all of the pages involved: what they are, how they interact, and what is proposed for each of them (if this is not readily understood). N oetica Tea? 01:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why do other people oppose disambiguating the "(band)"? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * [I'm not sure what you are asking, actually. Much of what you have presented here is quite mixed up. But I'll try.] Ask them, not me. I call it as I see it. What a mess! How can the proposed move (and the present state of the redirects and confusions with capitalisation) be of any benefit whatsoever, to anyone anywhere? That's the question. A comprehensive answer, please – and note that appeals to rules do not count as answers to this question. N oetica Tea? 02:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * explains disapproval from others. --George Ho (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close on procedural grounds. We need a fresh RM that deals with all the articles involved. See points I make above. N oetica Tea? 01:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I  will withdraw this proposal soon because, as Noetica pointed out, the whole "talk talk/Talk Talk" situation is very complicated. Before that, however, Noetica, what are your ideas? --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If no other ideas are successful, what about taking this to either WT:disambiguation or WT:RM? --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Time flies
25 years since Spirit of Eden. Best finish this article before all those who heard them are dead. I noted that the record sales are entirely focused on the UK; that downplays their huge following in Europe. Also, Mr. Hollis, thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Post-progressive
Hello,

can we agree to throw out "post-progressive" from the genre list? As far as I know, no other source uses this term to describe Talk Talk. It's not even an established genre, but a concept that appears in three or four books on progressive rock; no bands are commonly described as post-progressive. Also the Wikipedia page on "post-progressive" says that the label only applies to progressive rock bands, while most critics would agree that Talk Talk wasn't one, so this introduces confusion. I tried removing it myself, but an editor keeps restoring it without addressing my concerns. Chilton (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Post-progressive for background and further discussion — Chilton has copy and pasted this exact text on at least 2 other talk pages.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

On Tim being a member
The credits for the original Spirit LP start with Lee, Paul, Tim and Mark in this order, and then supporting musicians (see ) suggesting that by 1988 Tim was already considered a member of the band. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is your interpretation, but is by no means anything resembling defintive proof. On Laughing Stock, the listed order of musicians is Lee Harris, Mark Feltham, Martin Ditcham, Mark Hollis, Tim Friese-Greene, followed (with no break) by the names of the string players. (see ). Doesn't make Feltham or Ditcham band members. Or Friese-Greene.


 * Friese-Greene's contributions to Talk Talk's records are undeniable. But unless there's something that was officially issued (a corporate press release, perhaps) that clearly and unambiguously shows him to be an actual band member?  He was a collaborator, a producer, a co-songwriter, a musician -- but not a member of Talk Talk. 70.54.141.122 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Determining band members can be a legal nightmare. If there is a legal entity called "Talk Talk" there will be a list of directors or members, but if one member feels they can decide who is in and who is out they may disagree, and some fans will agree with them while others may not. The press may heavily promote membership for a performer without being legally precise. I would expect a member of a band to be given a fair share of sales, and not just a session fee and that may be a good way to decide who is a member on any given recording or performance. I have no specific details about "Talk Talk" in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X9Tim (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mark Hollis.jpg