Talk:Triumph (band)

Negative
Am I the only person who feels this article contains quite a negative POV about the band's work? —Malber(talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike when people compare Triumph to Rush. They both may have been three man bands from Toronto but the similarities should stop there. I agree with a recent entry that Rush is an album oriented band and Triumph is just an out right hard rock band with lyrics that have meaning...real meaning. Unlike a lot of bands Triumph does not write lyrics about violence, sex, demons, or hell. They sang about real life issues, wrote songs about positive inspiration. This is something that is not done very often outside the Christian Rock community. Still they do not compare to Ruch except for where they are from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar5150 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that RUSH and Triumph can't be put in the same genre. RUSH has been a band profilic of their musical achievements and the changes of style they have made during the years. Triumph's music has been basicaly made out of standard blues and the lyrics of the band has been more shallow, literary, but none the less accurate and to the point when it comes to reality when they were written. Triumph's most popular songs have indeed touched the hearts of many young people, and that is what music is about!

PH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.105.38.40 (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried removing the negative aspects of the article but evidently someone doesn't want it changed.StrangeMagic (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Negative is OK if it's referenced. See WP:NPOV. It isn't an amateur fansite. It is an encyclopedia. All verifiable information either postive or negative is welcome in this project. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why this place is such a waste of time. You want people to edit articles but you make excuses why those changes aren't worth keeping. I give up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.39.173 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edits keep getting reversed. I own the auto-biography book called Triumph and know several things about the band they themselves have cited, not to mention their own official website that here will not accept. For instance Triumph released one complete concept album and three loosely based ones, yet this place does not recognize them. Not to mention that several people are turned off greatly by the way the band is pointed out in what I would consider a completely off-based article. The fact that Wikipedia allows this nonsense, and false information, to be considered the definitive TRIUMPH biography that most will see before ever viewing the bands official page is disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllTriumph (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing these wussies to Rush is a real insult to Rush. 68.209.177.221 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a review by a credible music authority
Subscript text

Article seems more peppered than most with influence of author's personal tastes. For example, lyrics are referred to as simplistic, but their lyrics simply aren't, with references to Damocles' sword, Warhol, and Heinlein.

As well, there is an overly negative tone to much of the opinion on the band ("wooden", etc), that is disproportionate to Triumph's obvious success.

Numerous references to Rush are made; the bands are nothing alike. Rush is an album-oriented theatrical experience, and one of the best-selling bands in music history (76th all time, RIAA). Triumph is a rock band. They are both Canadian trios, and comparisons should end there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanrigbybrown (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not say it was "negative," but certainly critical. I see some positive comments mixed with the "objectionable" passages. As fans, we have to take the good with the bad. This was not meant as a one-sided paean to Triumph, but a fair and impartial article. As for the word "wooden," it was also used during an '80s review of "Stages." Do some research, guys!

As for comparing to Rush, I see quite a lot of similarity. Rik Emmett even went so far during the 1980s to compare "Never Surrender" to "Signals," with the remark that like Geddy Lee, he had taken a more nuanced approach to vocals. Moreover, he later said during a "Surveillance" interview, that although his bandmates could not say so, Rik felt a certain "empathy" toward Rush music. Triumph certainly did dabble with the progressive motifs, especially on "Thunder Seven," and many '80s critics tended to notice more than a mere resemblance to Rush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.123.19 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reunion
Am I the only one spotting the inconsistency with the statements of "no reunion" in the article and the picture accompanying the article of the 2008 reunion concert in Sweeden? I should think the reunion should be mentioned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icdaman (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not alone... it is a glaring inconsistency, and the personnel sections list people as if the band are 'current'. Also odd no comparison with fellow progish-rock-HM canadians Rush? Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Added external link to the Media Commons (a public archives) where Triumph archival documents are located. Please let me know if this is seen as problematic. Mea558 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Christian rock? Why?
They're not a christian rock band, nor are they "known for" christian rock influences. Why was that added? Meve Stills (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

/

Session Member Sil Simone
Another session member is guitarist Sil Simone, he has a songwriting credit on Surveillance 2607:FEA8:1360:7B3:F164:A5B:781F:6DFB (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)