Talk:The Go-Go's

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spelling the band name[edit]

I hate to be picky, but shouldn't this page be titled "The Go-Go's", with "The Go-Gos" redirected to it, rather than the other way around? Even though proper English would suggest the plural of "go-go" is "go-gos", "The Go-Go's" is the way the band members spell it. One could wonder whether this was for artistic license (like Split Enz) or from ignorance, but ultimately, the band's preference should be honored. -- Jeff Q 03:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to their album covers, they do indeed include the apostrophe, but not the the. Both Vacation and Talk Show read "GO-GO'S". Hyacinth 04:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Then this page should be titled "Go-Go's", and both the "The" versions should be redirects. Maybe "Go-Gos" should be a redirect, too? Ugh. -- Jeff Q 05:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One other small detail; toward the end of the page, the entry on the Go Go's states that basisst Kathy Valentine moved from bass to rhythm guitar. She actually moved to lead guitar, with Charlotte Caffey moved from from lead guitar to primarily rhythm guitar and keyboards. Interestingly, the band only played two shows with this line-up; both shows at the Rock in Rio Festival, 1985. Johnd/John D

You can go ahead and change that information. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is shaping up nicely, what do YOU think??? Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 18:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definite article in the official name for the Go-Gos, as confirmed by record labels and Joel Whitburn's chart books. The definite article is used before their name in speech and in running text, but not in headings and in lists of names. The same is true for:

Carpenters Buggles

I can't figure out how to remove the definite article from the titles of the entries of these acts.

For the record, the following non-definite-article acts are listed correctly in Wikipedia:

Pet Shop Boys Buzzcocks Spice Girls Village People Sex Pistols Doves Associates Bee Gees

A nerdy observation, but keeping in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Personally, I think it should be: the Go Gos

Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 08:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to resolve "The" issue[edit]

Lots of groups have real "schizo-The" issues- a great example would be The Bangles: almost all of their album covers say "Bangles", almost all references to them are as "The Bangles", and the women themselves seem to switch back and forth without concern. technically the group's name is just "Bangles", but you can check them out online at their official web site- it's (wait for it, wait for it) THEBangles.com. Conversely, Eurythmics have fought the mark of the "The" pretty loudly since day one.

Welcome to somewhere in between- while the general public may be wrong when referring to them, the band seemed to give up "The" fight long ago if indeed they ever really cared. Nonetheless, in this case the answer is pretty definitive if grammatically incorrect: the group's name is "Go-Go's"; they may not have known how to use an apostrophe but they knew they didn't like the word "The". As a final note, check their web site gogos.com- the splash page is clear: "Go-Go's" no definitive article, but a hyphen and apostrophe to make up for it.

I was going to go ahead and change the title for the entry, but thought I'd post here instead and wait 7 or 10 days- I hate to do something drastic like that without first seeing if anyone else has a strong opinion otherwise. I find it hard to believe any one but me would really care about this, but maybe I'm not so strange after all... :)
--02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Snozzwanger

We definitely need to standardize the article text, regarding including the apostrophe or not, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual performances[edit]

No, Greg Fasolino, my edit was not "unexplained deletion of sourced material)".[1]My edit summary said "-single performances". While you might not have understood what I meant or disagreed with me, that's something entirely different.

The material in question is indeed sourced -- to a primary source. We have books, newspaper articles, magazines, etc. as sources here. Let's see why we needed a primary source for this. The band has played on dozens of shows upwards to a hundred times over the decades. Why don't we list them all? Because, in the history of the band, most individual performances (the TV appearances and thousands of concerts over the years) are simply not noteworthy. Yeah, if you dig, you can find secondary sources that mention various appearances, especially those that occurred within the past few years. Most of these, like their set list on August 15, 1984, are not significant.

Occasionally, an individual performance is notable. Sinead O'Connor's appearance on SNL comes to mind. Those receive individual discussion in independent reliable sources years after they occur. Those belong in the bands' articles.

This performance, however, is not likely to mean anything over the years. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with what SummerPhDv2.0 says here, and that paragraph was indeed far too detailed, I think it is interesting to note that the GoGo's have actually performed as a band after their Farewell Tour. I'm thinking of adding just a sentence such as The band has actually performed occasionally after that tour, with a citation from some piece of news (I'm sure it would not be difficult to find one).--Gorpik (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quote that's there ("We’re not breaking up, per se—we’re just not going to be doing the touring like we’ve been doing for many, many years. We might still do a date here or there, or do a benefit or something like that, but not do the big touring anymore. So that’s what that’s about.") covers that quite nicely, IMO. We don't have a source to characterize it as "performed occasionally". At some point we will have reliable sources discussing what they have been up to these past few months. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Only?[edit]

"The Go-Go's ... were the first, and to date only, all-female band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts." The Bangles have a number of hits where a band member has a writing credit (usually Susannah Hoffs) including Eternal Flame which reached #1 on Billboard Hot 100. Is this supposed to be narrowly qualified to those without help from additional songwriters who are not in the band? I guess it also excludes any female solo artists, of which there are many. It also must not include album charts, or (single or album) country charts since then it would include Dixie Chicks. So in order to make this statement true you have to interpret it so narrowly and specifically that it seems less impressive than it sounds at first glance. Gripdamage (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few unrelated issues here.
The source is unquestionably reliable for the content. That is not an issue.
One definite issue to "to date". This means it is true as of now. The source, from 9 years ago, does not say that obviously. Whatever we say here must avoid projecting past the source. We would not use a 2010 article to say "Barak Obama is the president of the United States."
Next is what the source says, verses what the article says verses what you are reading. I have not looked at the source yet, but yes, the Bangles have a number of hits with one or more members given co-writing credit. The article does not discuss that. The article says the Go-Go's "wrote their own songs". A song written by a member of the band and others was not written by the band. It was written by a member of the band and several other people.
A female solo artist is not a band, let alone an "all-female band".
Yes, records are defined narrowly: "the first top-40 song by a solo artist over 50 since 1979" has lots of limits. That said, if a major publication (or several) makes the statement, it is likely relevant. Yes, there may be ambiguities: "over 50" when it was recorded, when it was released or when it hit the top-40? Yes, it's limiting. What about duos, bands, 49 year olds, country hits, etc. Again, coverage in reliable sources is a strong indicator of relevance.
If, once you review what the source says, you feel that we are not accurately reporting what the sources says, please suggest modifications to the wording.
If you feel the sources is not reliable... This one is.
If you feel we are giving the fact too much WP:WEIGHT, please suggest a change. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now see the link is dead and archive.org seems to be fighting with me at the moment. Here's a newer version, also from Rolling Stone, "...the only all-female group that writes and plays its own songs to top the Billboard chart."[2] - If anyone else wants to add the archive link, have at it. Otherwise, I'm waiting until this question is resolved. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually when I look over the Go Go's chart placements they never have a number 1 single on any chart ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Go%27s_discography . I can see no way that the sentence can be interpreted as true, based on the information on Wikipedia. Gripdamage (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the Go Go's the Bangles have a #1 single on Billboard for which the singer Susannah Hoffs has a writing credit, and they play their own instruments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bangles_discography If we're talking albums then the Dixie Chicks have 3 number 1 albums on the Billboard 200, and they write their own songs and play their own instruments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_discography I don't care if Rolling Stone repeated their PR: It doesn't seem to be true. Gripdamage (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing the source is wrong (which is not what verifiability is about). What an independent reliable source says is verifiable. Rolling Stone is not repeating Go-Go's press releases and it is an independent reliable source. If you disagree on this point, please take the issue directly to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Heads up: There is no question that Rolling Stone is an independent reliable source for this statement.)
Not that it matters, but your examples seem to be confused. The statement is: "The Go-Go's ... were the first, and to date only, all-female band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts."
The Bangles did not "top the Billboard album charts". The Bangles have never topped the "Billboard 200" album chart. How various singles did or did not chart is irrelevant to the "album" charts.
The Dixie Chicks topped the Billboard album chart three times. Twice they did not meet "wrote their own songs" and the third time they did not "(play) their own instruments". Fly their first #1 album, has several songs that were not written by any of the band members. Ditto Home. On these albums, they did not "(write) their own songs".
Taking the Long Way Home, their third and final #1 album, has them writing their own songs (with one co-writing credit), but fails on "playing their own instruments", as shown at Taking_the_Long_Way#Personnel, which lists 19 other musicians on the album.
The Go-Go's Beauty and the Beat topped (reached #1) the "Billboard 200" album chart. Beauty and the Beat is almost nothing but the Go-Go's writing (Peter Case shares credit on one song, Terry Hall on another). The Go-Go's played every instrument on the album (see Beauty_and_the_Beat_(The_Go-Go's_album)#Personnel). - SummerPhDv2.0 03:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So according to you this is the Dixie chicks not playing their own instruments?
"Natalie Maines – Lead vocals, background vocals, omnichord
Martie Maguire – Violin, viola, mandolin, strings, background vocals, string arrangements
Emily Robison – Banjo, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, papoose, accordion, sitar, background vocals" How many instruments do they need to play in order to "play their own instruments"? Absolutely every band member played at least one instrument on the album. If you're saying by your standard that if any other musician appears they don't "play their own instruments" then the Beatles also don't play their own instruments. Is that true?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Mystery_Tour#Personnel I count almost 90 other musicians on Magical Mystery Tour looking at Personnel. Is it your contention that the Beatles therefore don't play their own instruments? Gripdamage (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to Rolling Stone, apparently, the 19 other musicians on that album playing instruments are not the Dixie Chicks playing their own instruments. Yes, they play some of the instruments on the album, but there are dozens they are not playing. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, whether or not you or I consider those 19 musicians to be either not playing instruments or somehow being all female and members of the band is immaterial. - SummerPhDv2.0 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And no one is disputing Rolling Stone is normally a reliable source, but that doesn't mean every word must be taken as gospel truth. This wouldn't be their first or biggest mistake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone#UVA_false_rape_story Gripdamage (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would, however, be one where the facts are not in any way disputed or obscure, yet they continue to make the statement for years on end. Are you saying no one at Rolling Stone is aware of the Dixie Chicks?
Is it possible that you are right and no one at Rolling Stone over the decades ever thought about the Dixie Chicks? Yes, but it's unlikely. With each additional independent reliable source making the statement, it becomes even less likely: The Hollywood Bowl[3], BBC[4], Newsweek[5], The Morning Call[6], LA Weekly[7], Latin Times[8], ABC News Radio[9], Desert Sun[10], The Daily Mail[11], MSN[12]... Some of those are not terribly reliable. Some of them are. There are plenty more. I am not saying my explanation is definitely right, I'm saying that a sizable landslide of reliable sources say your answer -- that Rolling Stone has been repeatedly wrong on this for decades -- isn't. - SummerPhDv2.0 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so it isn't really logical discourse to say that in order for Rolling Stone to get this statement wrong that would mean "no one at Rolling Stone over the decades ever thought about the Dixie Chicks". I assume they've done articles on the Dixie Chicks too. That doesn't mean this statement is wrong or right. You are familiar with the concept that even good sources get it wrong sometimes? It could be that when they write an article about the Go Go's no one involved with that article thinks to say "Hey what about the Dixie Chicks?", and that can happen even if there happens to be an article about the Dixie Chicks in the very same issue of Rolling Stone the article appears in.
The statement says "all female band". The Dixie Chicks are hopefully inarguably an "all-female band", right? It is understood that the 90 session musicians on the Beatles album are distinguishable from members of the band The Beatles, isn't it? Magical Mystery Tour didn't mean there are now 90 people in the Beatles, right? It's still just George, Paul, Ringo, and John so far as I know. So there are 4 members of both the Beatles and the Dixie Chicks. I also don't think the commonly understood meaning of "playing their own instruments" means there cannot be a single session musician anywhere on the album. How do you think it would go over walking into the offices of Rolling Stone or a decent record shop and arguing the Beatles didn't "play their own instruments" on Magical Mystery Tour? Clearly the Beatles play their own instruments, even if they have other musicians perform on the album, and those musicians on the album are not *in* the band. Please clarify that you understand these points. Rather than just skipping over them and dumping the links from your Googling on me. I can Google too. It's interesting when you look at the phrasing.
2016 "the first all-female band to top the Billboard album charts by both writing its own songs and playing its own instruments." https://www.mcall.com/entertainment/lehigh-valley-music/mc-the-go-go-s-going-gone-successful-all-female-1980s-group-bringing-farewell-tour-to-sands-event-cente-20160805-story.html They are the first. That is true. I argue they are not the only. Did you not read your own sources carefully, preferring to just dump a bunch of links on me and make me sort them out? Because this doesn't support the claim.
2019 "the first and only female band that topped the Billboard charts while both writing their own songs and playing their own instruments." https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/why-arent-these-women-in-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame/ss-BBVq50b
undated/uncredited therefore anonymous. "...the first – and to date, only – all-female band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to ever top the Billboard charts." https://www.hollywoodbowl.com/musicdb/artists/5245/the-go-gos - a band bio from a venue website...impressive.
2016 "the first, and to date only, all-female rock band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to ever top the Billboard 200 albums chart." https://www.latintimes.com/billboard-music-awards-2016-dnce-go-gos-shawn-mendes-amongst-performers-night-382048
"the first, and to date only, all-female band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts." https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/eec163e4-a013-4af0-9641-c5b2df41fff7?trackfocus=n5x68m
So uh weird how they all say the exact same phrasing almost, right? Who was the first person to write the sentence that way anyway? This BBC article (which you are implicitly saying is a good source) actually cites Wikipedia as the source of the words, so you're making a circler reference there. I bet you didn't know that, because again you didn't read your own sources. Clearly an article that cites the Wikipedia article can't be a good source for the claim itself. But it does suggest something else: according to the source, the statement actually originates from Wikipedia. Could that be true? That got me thinking, how far does it date back in the article? Well that's interesting. Let's take a look.
Jan 2006 looks to be the first time any statement like this was in the lead paragraph was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Go-Go%27s&diff=prev&oldid=34479560 in. It says: "The Go-Go's were the first all-woman band in rock to achieve commercial success." Seems a bit loose of a claim to me, but since this point in the history I looked at *a lot* of versions of the page, and starting with this addition there seems to be a continuously appearing version of the claim.
July 2006 the claim is tightened up to mention Billboard from "They are notable as the first all-woman band in rock that played their instruments and wrote their own songs to achieve commercial success." to "They are notable as the first all-woman band in rock that played their instruments and wrote their own songs to achieve a #1 Billboard hit." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Go-Go%27s&diff=prev&oldid=63903484 Somewhat close to today's language but without a citation. But indisputably correct.
Jan 2009 - A citation is added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Go-Go%27s&diff=next&oldid=265306481. Nicely this original cite is still available in Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20090424111838/http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?pid=64572 At this point the Wikipedia article says "They made rock history as the first all-woman band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts." The citation does say that the album was #1 but otherwise it doesn't seem to support the claim (though the claim being made at this point is indisputably true: they are "the first").
March 2013: a bot seems to break the citation link here. The claim has been similar to "They made history as the first all-female band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts." for 7 years at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Go-Go%27s&diff=prev&oldid=547394530
24 April 2014 The phrase "and to date only" was added by an unauthenticated user right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Go-Go%27s&diff=prev&oldid=605644093 ... *without* the addition of a new source for the claim.
From 2006 to 2014 the claim was always "the first" without "the only" the former which is indisputably true. The original also happens to date back in the article further back then the Dixie Chick's album we were talking about. Can you find some other source for the new phrasing older than 2014? Because I'm thinking the sentence that is being ripped off left and right really did start here from an anonymous user in 2014, which is also what your BBC source seems to say. So first we had in the article which over the years evolved to the more precise and totally correct "They made history as the first all-female band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts." Then some anon changed it to "They made history as the first, [and to date only], all-female band that both wrote their own songs and played their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts.". And those words have been appearing more or less word for word in news articles about The Go Go's ever since. It's a bold claim. That's why it grabbed my attention. I don't think looking at our own page history qualifies as original research does it? We should be able to talk about how something came to be in the article and how it evolved over time, shouldn't we? Now obviously it's just my opinion that lazy journalists have been ripping off Wikipedia for that last 5 years, but can you find an older source for the claim? I actually think them repeating it with such similar phrasing over and over again makes it seem less reliable, not more. Clearly, they're just pilching it, with only the BBC bothered to cite where it came from. Who wrote it first? Unless an older source can be found it seems obvious to me they Googled it and stole the sentence from our lead word for word. I mean I don't really care what you do with that. I would neither call myself a Go Go fan or a hater. It just seemed like a bold claim to me, and I've convinced myself it's false. I saw from the history that you've been editing this article a long time thoough. It's nice of you to give so long to the subject. Maybe you care about the truth in something you've been editing for that long, or you know, hang your hat on winning the argument that a claim originally made by anon@198.72.149.68 without adding a source was right if you want to. I think my OCD is satisfied now, so do as you please. Gripdamage (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up: Maybe not the Bangles. In your interpretation of the wording, maybe the Dixie Chicks. Maybe Rolling Stone has been flat out wrong for years with various authors making the same mistake repeatedly and no one bothering to fact check. Maybe every source making the statement is copying from somewhere else.
Here's how we typically solve such quests for the "truth": We give up on the truth. Is the Earth spherical? Does HIV cause AIDS? Did the Nazis kill millions of Jews in the Holocaust? Do vaccines work? Are the Go-go's the only all-female band writing their own songs and playing their own instruments to top the Billboard album charts? Who knows? Not us. What we do know, however, is that we can neutrally say that the verifiable answer -- maybe true, maybe not -- to each of those questions is "yes" and cite independent reliable sources to prove it.
At this point, I'm kinda done with piling up the OR to dispute reliable sources. I suppose the next step would be a RfC. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you like. Frankly it should cause Wikipedia an existential crisis to discover that what *should* be good journalistic sources are prone to just cribbing from anon@198.72.149.68 on Wikipedia like hungover college kids trying to finish an essay the day before it's due. Someone adds uncited rubbish. The good sources steal it. Then we cite them, and everyone is satisfied that they've got it right forevermore. Even when you lay out the whole history of the original quote for an editor, which has been stolen word for word, they simply refuse to see it. Denial and defensiveness are truly awesome forces which rule us all. I'm no different of course. I just happened to come late to the party and look at it with fresh eyes. If I had edited this article for as long as you have, I'd probably be defending it right there with you. Are you not entertained? Gripdamage (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sic[edit]

At present, we do not so mark Led Zepplin, Def Leppard, The Beatles, Everyday Is Christmas (album), Everyday Is Like Sunday, Everyday I Love You (film), k.d. lang, Google, Dr Pepper, Wendy's, iPhone or thousands of other proper nouns you may feel should be punctuated, capitalized or spelled differently. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SummerPhDv2.0: What's erroneous about Wendy's? Is it that the principal person behind the chain wasn't named Wendy? —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

Can we add power pop to the genres?Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dig deeper[edit]

This is one sanitized article. The AXS docu, with plenty of hard-hitting revealing statements from the band members (and ex-member & original manager) should be used to 'call a spade a spade' instead of some of the poofery here. It got ugly. Really ugly. 104.169.18.254 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Go-Go%27s&oldid=1205430822"