Talk:Thin Lizzy

Picture on Article

Something thats bothered me on my last few visits to wikipedia has been the picture on the thin lizzy article. I feel personally that having a picture of the group during the Lynott/downey/gorham/robertson era would be better suited than the current line up.

Danny275 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing style, POV on "reformation"

The reformation section does not point out that after the departure of Downey from the tribute line-up, no original band members remained. The matter of the Sykes/Gorham/Wharton/Mendoza/Aldridge band using the name "Thin Lizzy" still remains a point of contention among fans.

The rest of the article does not read like an encyclopædia article; it has too many superlative and emotionally-biased words in it.

71.241.67.240 (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's bothersome to me that the article seems to place the "reformed" Thin Lizzy on an equal footing with the actual, original career of the band, as though having Phil Lynott in the band was just a brief transitory phase. 70.183.63.108 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be bothersome if the article were written as a fan praise page and not as a cold neutral article... like a good encyclopedia should be written. It's not a memorial. It's an information page. The longer the reformed band stays "reformed" and adding to the entire Thin Lizzy history... then the more content will be added to compliment that longevity. There are lots of online fanpages for fanboyisms. POV praising has no place here. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dual guitar

In the article: "This style was later refined and popularised by bands of the emerging New Wave of British Heavy Metal, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden especially. The latter group in particular has praised Thin Lizzy extensively and even covered the song"

Not exact. Priest's 1st album, Rocka Rolla, which prominently displays dual lead, and especially their innovation of dual rhythm, was released by the time they recruited a second guitar. Eric Bell left before the completion of "Vagabonds" and Moore recorded the rest but they didn't record together. For Nightlife, Robbo did most of the job, and Gorahm joined when all was nearly finished. AS I said, Priest had the album out before even Gorham was hired. www.jpfo.org No mention here of Gary Moores contribution i.e. 'Still In Love With You' which muddies the waters even further if you are to believe the previous statement. A lot of the twin guitar work on this album sounds too coherent to me for a large part of it to be overdubbed. I'm prepared to accept the recruitment timeline but I do feel the band went into a recording studio armed with 2 guitarists an 90% of an albums worth of songs.

Eric Bell did a lot of in-studio "dual guitar" overdub work, on all the albums he played on. This is evident right on Lizzy's debut album, on tracks like "The Friendly Ranger at Clontarf Castle" and "Look What The Wind Blew In" – and even on "Whiskey". Gary Moore did similar guitar work on "Sitamoia". Gorham and Robertson didn't initiate that sound within the band – it was already established.

71.241.67.240 (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm sure i recall a refence made by or about lynott being keen on the twin lead guitar idea with reference to the yardbirds, although it's not the thing that springs first to my mind in connection to that band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.22 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"One-hit" US-centric

The term "one-hit wonder" relating to "The Boys Are Back In Town" has got to be US-centric since that was the band's only "hit" in the United States, and the band never really toured much here as a result. However, they had quite a few hits in Europe, particularly in Ireland and the UK, and had solid cult followings in Australia and Canada. There is also a surprising number of fans here in the United States who have a substantial Lizzy collection, though much of this has to be obtained from Canada or overseas since most of the band's catalogue is no longer in print by American record companies.--MarshallStack 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's total crap, I think the person that made that hasn't ever head "Jailbreak", "Whiskey in the Jar".Fentoro 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a one hit wonder at all

Notable songs/hits include "Jailbreak", "Whisky in the jar", "Boys are back in town", "Rosalie", "Sara", "Waiting for an alibi", "Dancing in the moonlight" etc etc exolon 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Point made

Guys, I think the point has been made. User:AlfredG hasn't made a contribution since August last year and User:Arvatov came and went in November last year. Don't lose any more sleep over it. Not the most popular band ever but certainly noteable and not a one hit wonder. SilentC 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Peel Sessions

Should Thin Lizzy's Peel Sessions album be included in the discography? Maybe under live albums? -- Borb 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, add it in under live albums. MPalangio (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lizzy on TOTP, November 1979

Can anyone tell me, exactly who was the lead guitarist alongside Scott when the band performed the single Sarah. I listen to the band but have never known at all times who performed what and I don't recognize the guitarist to the left. It must have been then that Snowy White joined the band but this doesn't look like him, and it doesn't appear to be Gary Moore either, whom I think left the bad the same year, obviously Midge Ure didn't have longish curly hair. Sorry if I appear ignorant. Evlekis 12 May 2006

That guitarist might have been Dave Flett - he was a brief stand-in before White came along, but I haven't seen the footage so can't be sure. Bretonbanquet 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is Dave Flett and the drummer is Clive Edwards from Brian Robertson's band 'Wild Horses'.

Phil O Phil O 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wah on lead "distinctive and influential"?

To fair this wasn't a novel technique (e.g. Jimi- Voodoo Child (Slight Return))

Best Known song

The article twice states that 'The Boys are Back in Town' is their best known song. Most people I know when I mention Thin Lizzy immediately say 'Whisky in the Jar' and I notice this charted higher in the UK than the other song.

This is just the US perspective Vs British Isles view once again. 'The boys are back in town' is a staple in US classic rock radio stations and shows up regularly in TV commercials, and once in a while you hear 'Jailbreak' on the radio, but 3,000 miles to the east, I would have to agree with you that 'Whiskey in the Jar' comes out on top. I think the article could be clarified to make that clear.Dmccabe 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't have any reference for this, it was a well known fact that Phil Lynott despised the fact that Whiskey in the Jar was their most popular and best known song. They never played it at any of the 7 or 8 concerts I went to and requests from the front row for it to be played, were met with comments like 'No we're not playing Whiskey in the f***ing jar'. I think Phil was always frustrated by the fact that their most successful song was not an original Lizzy composition, nor was it in what he considered to be, their trademark genre. Far Canal 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre

In case anyone is inquiring about "heavy metal," it is simply there due majority of traditional metal bands on Wikipedia having "heavy metal" under their respective genre boxes, and Thin Lizzy shouldn't be an exception. Just thought I'd clear that up. --Ryouga 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not starting an argument, and classifiying bands is always beyond my patience, but I'd say that only "Thunder and Lightning" was Heavy Metal, with "Renegade" being somewhere on the way to HM. Nothing before that was anything like it. Bretonbanquet 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like a lot of other early hard rock bands with the metal tag, they are not completely "metal." In all honesty though, they are more metal than bands like KISS and Led Zeppelin, who also receive the label on Wikipedia. That is why it should stick. Although I agree that they are basically a hard rock band, the metal part is still there, minimal or not. What they lack in "metalness" they make up for in immense influence. (Also, being listed in the Encyclopaedia Metallum must indicate some degree of metal, they are pretty elite when it comes to bands allowed.) --Ryouga 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with the tag, and I would definitely agree that their main claim to "metalness" lies in their influence on other bands, and that they're more metal than KISS and LZ. I think the problem lies in defining metal and controlling which bands get the metal tag on Wikipedia - lots of people add it where it's not warranted, and take it off where it should be present. Very difficult! Bretonbanquet 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however, as long as it's a classic rock band that influenced metal, I'll be ok with it. I just dislike having any mention of "metal" on nü metal, modern rock and metalcore band pages. But as we all know, Lizzy is pretty deserving of the title, if we include the influential bands. --Ryouga 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what other people think, but a lot of the early stuff (e.g. Thin Lizzy and Shades of a Blue Orphanage) and some of the older stuff as well, (e.g. Got to Give it Up, Parissiene Walkways and even Dont Believe a Word) is pretty bluesy, not just in playing style but in lyrics as well, so shouldnt that be added? Just a thought. Juice07 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

speaking as an old-timer i'd say LZ invented HM which has some extravagantly pitched vocals to match guitar. an early band like AC/DC fit that but seem to prefer a less limiting description. 'sweat'Inge (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Zep were more hard rock than metal, even for the era, and were simply louder blues, and most experts in the subject would never dare to say the Zep invented HM. The unique HM sound, in their opinion, was invented by Black Sabbath, tripled with two other bands that released albums very close together, Deep Purple, and Uriah Heep. Lizzy is considered HM not necessarily for "heaviness", but for the HM structure of their songs, thus their heavy influence on future hard rock and HM bands. Sounds about right, but opinions are what they are.Neonblak (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lizzy are best catagorised as Hard Rock Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Member, personnel list and info box

Sorry - the infobox MUST mention Phil.

The lists seem excessive - is it really necessary ? Or could we have a simpler format ?

And that box - really, Phil should be as big as everyone else.

-- Beardo 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt look good having Lynott & Downey and "and various guitarists" (which isnt correct anyway, as there's a former keyboardist). I Think the infobox should either just have "See Personnel" (Lynott is already mentioned in the infobox in the photo caption, and also in the 2nd line of the article) or have every former member listed, regardless of the number (See Iron Maiden). Ezenden 04:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically the more recent incarnation of the band's a totally different band. We could have the article effectively divided into two (on the same page still, mind), with a seperate info box in each. So call the new one "The New Thin Lizzy" or something. (The Elfoid 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

They havent released any new material, they just play original Thin Lizzy. It features members from the original incarnation. Its the same name, same emblem etc and as every source, includng this very Wikipedia article will tell you; they 'reunited'. So how exactly is it a "totally different band"? Are you seriously suggesting every band that reforms without all its original or "classic" members should be considered a new, seperate entity? If so, good luck on attempting to edit the endless number of band articles where this situation has occured. This article clearly points out the difference between and the history of the Lynott Lizzy and post-Lynott Lizzy; there is no need to create a fictional "New Thin Lizzy" band. Ezenden 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that with Lynott as the only constant member, he at one point may have held legal rights to the name. Which would mean the name was passed on. (The Elfoid 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

i am trying to find out who phil was married to thanks seemly he had a well known father inlaw

It's in the Phil Lynott article. Bretonbanquet 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't wish to upset the apple-cart peeps but there really should be no mention of any 'incarnation' of the band after Philip Lynott died in 1986. Once he was gone, any hopes or dreams of the band 'reforming' were well and truly lost.

What has been out there touring on and off since 1994 is a truly a fictional "New Thin Lizzy band" and neither they nor the album - 'One Night Only' - they released, should be included in any history of the band Thin Lizzy.

Phil O - www.thin-lizzy.info, www.philip-lynott.com Phil O 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, Midge Ure's stint as guitarist is mentioned in the text but he is not listed in the band personnel.

Smcleish 12:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Farewell Tour

Thin Lizzy's fairwell tour was in 1983. Not 1984. Thin Lizzy never had any gigs in 1984. Their last show was in Nuremburg September 4, 1983. This is easily verifiable so I'm not sure it was reverted back to 1984 after I had changed it once. Thin Lizzy never existed after 1983. The5thhorseman 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

sounds about right, i recall seeing grand slam on the status quo end of the road bill at selhurst park in '84. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.22 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The Wikipedia Article "thin Lizzy" is similar to the article http://artists.letssingit.com/thin-lizzy-h21kq/biography

The copy is likely in the opposite direction and the linked article is a Wiki mirror. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

hi

this is jordan i need help how do you work this i dont no who you talk to people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skully999 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Worst page

This is one of the worst pages I have read on Wiki. It is a disgrace that such an important hit band which was one of the biggest touring bands in Europe in the Late 1970s is dealt with so badly. The problem appears to be that there is a touring group trading on the name and reputation of Lynott who was a very important songwriter and performer. Lizzy without Phil is really just a tribute band.

There are thousands of articles , several books and lots of web resources that can be used to correct this.

thought I was logged in on my page edit , have done so now.

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This page needs serious attention

On further reading of the page I suggest that all info re Lizzy post Lynott's death be moved to a new page about the modern tribute band. The classic original band should be dealt with in a page called Thin Lizzy. The other should be called Thin Lizzy minus Phil Lynott or something like that. This page is a disgrace!! It is a completely messed up misrepresentation of the history of a very important band. Obviously written by a pr person for the touring cover band using the name Thin Lizzy. There is a legal side to their use of the name but I dont think there are articles. Regardless this page must be stubbed and rebuilt.

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The page can't be edited like a Phil fanboy. Wikipedia is suppoased to be an encyclopedia of verifiable facts. Not a fansite. Lynott is dead. And there is still a band legally touring under the name Thin Lizzy. This is something they do with the blessing of Lynott's family. There is lots of webspace for you to create a fansite for Phil Lynott. But it won't be here. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter you use edit summery's like " The Who, along with The Beatles and The Kinks, are one of the best example of how 'pop rock' can still be good." are you serious. The Lizzy page sucks , and as you will note from the top has serious errors that have been noted by other users. Don't be a metal snob. The article needs seriuos work. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a fansite!!!!~Do you use any ciations on your edits or are they are just opinion?Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Band web sites are not considered good sources. Neither are their Mammy'sOpiumjones 23 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous editor's note is valid. The band is still active under the name Thin Lizzy. They are not listed or marketed as any sort of tribute band. Libs 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article needs work, and I'll start on it soon, hopefully with civil input from everyone else here, and anyone else who has something to offer. As for the status of the current band, it's not in dispute as far as I can see. Bands carry on without their leaders all the time. It'll be a lot easier to provide sources to confirm the current band's identity and legality than it will be to disprove it. Verifying that the current band are fraudsters or a cover band will be impossible, although anyone is welcome to try. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"In 1996 latter-day Thin Lizzy guitarist John Sykes decided to try and re-assemble Thin Lizzy, presenting the band as a tribute to Phil Lynott's life and work."

This quote is from the article, NB it is not referenced but does use the almighty phrase "tribute" ie Tribute Band. Enough said. I will leave to you to sort out. Don't want the Keranng posse stepping on my winkle pickers. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The standout phrase there is "not referenced". Anything that is not referenced will go when I get around to that section. I am working on the article, in one of my sandboxes, but I haven't got around to the current band yet. I doubt it'll be a long section to be honest, but the sources I have refer to the current project starting out as a tribute to Lynott. That doesn't necessarily make it a tribute band, because tribute bands generally do not contain any original members of whatever band they're a tribute to. It's semantics, but hopefully we'll end up with something we're all happy with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, factual and cited is pretty good place to start. I think the original conflict between the first two editors was that the page must continue to convey the fact that the band "are" and not the band "were". There was an attempt to degen the page into a Phil Lynott fansite as opposed to a Thin Lizzy encyclopedia article. Which, in the end, is what the page is to be. I am a librarian. I sometimes have electronic access to pro publications/interviews that are only available in snippets online. Let me know if I can assist. I can't guarantee I can get anything specifically. But there is literally tons of that stuff floating around our system. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I totally agree that this article went off the rails somewhere and became some kind of Lynott tribute page... there is already a Philip Lynott article and that would be the best place for people to test their tribute-style edits! Hopefully this article will be more band-orientated without belittling Lynott's overwhelming contribution to the band. Soon hopefully I'll edit in what I've done, and you and everyone else can pull out bad bits, add in bits I've missed out etc, and make sure it's encyclopedic and well-sourced. I'm not trying to give some kind of perfect, untouchable precis of the band's history, just a basis for a decent article :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this article has now received its "serious attention". Hopefully we can use this as a basis for a decent article, if people are happy with it. If they're not, well let's talk about it :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On a quick-view of the re-write, the article looks like a well structured page with a decent number of citations. I am not going to pick it apart for wording. I am confident that the prose is balanced and readable simply based on the experience of the editor who contributed the new content. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI The Greedy Bastards

1978, Steve Jones and & Paul Cook from the Sex Pistols, plus Phil Lynott Scott Gorham, Brian Downey, & Gary Moore, plus Jimmy Bain (Rainbow / Dio) & Chris Spedding, played as The Greedy Bastards, Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That will be included in the revamped article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Style

needs work, e.g. one night a little to familiar and vague?

No offence good work otherwise Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"One night" is as exact as we're going to get, I'm afraid, and it's accurate. The band began on that night rather than over a period of days. A native English speaker? Forgive me if I am somewhat amused by that. I am as native as they come, and my English is just fine. Any grammatical errors there will almost certainly be typos. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Second para two sentences begin with As, Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I get for changing a sentence without reading the rest of the paragraph. That paragraph, incidentally, is about the only thing I didn't really change too much from the previous version. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry i think we are both editing the same thing and edit conflicting I will leave it to you Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine, really. That paragraph is something I should have worked on rather than left as it was. Hopefully between us, we've arrived at a decent result. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Slane Castle

The interesting thing there is that Thin Lizzy were the first rock band to headline at the site. The next year 1982 THe Rolling Stones played there for the first time to 80, 000 plus people.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)