Talk:Duran Duran

Genres

Someone keeps messing up the genres section. Can we leave them as they are? Nothing wrong with the one's listed right now, they've done them all at some point in their career. Though Electropop and Synthpop are the same thing aren't they, as are New Wave and New Romantic? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong...New Wave is Americentric, New Wave is another term for 'Punk rock' Even Nick Rhodes has said this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well even still Duran Duran are Electropop (Electric Bareberella, Big Bang Generation), As well as Synth Pop (they are noted to making the music more danceable and bring it to Mainstream), New Romantic(there known to be the most successful New Romantic band of the era), and of course New Wave. Somebody is taking all these tags off and putting ALternative pop on there. They are also Alternative Rock but Alternative Pop? But thats not what bothers me is the fact that someone is erasing New Wave, New Romantic, and Synth Pop off the genre listing. If you honestly think they are not those genres you really need to read up more on your Duran Duran. They are also Pop/Rock (Ordinary World) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Pop? Didn't even know it existed lol GNRDemocrazy (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They also in the past stated that they are New Wave on there own official Website. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is still vandalising the page. I've reverted the genres back to Rock, New Wave, New Romantic, Synthpop, Electropop and Alternative Rock. There is nothing wrong with these genres as they have done them all. I added Funk Rock as well as the Notorious album was heavily influenced by funk with heavy brass and bass sections. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus on Wikipedia:GENRE has been for some time that New Romanticism was a fashion movement and not music genre. Read the article! Because a band dressed a certain way doesn’t mean they played their instruments any differently to the Synthpop or Pop Rock genres. Most early 80s bands labeled as new romantic fit into simply Synthpop or Pop Rock. Haircuts do not a music genre make 90.42.132.8 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be a music genre as well because if it seriously wasnt it would not be reconized as a music genre sites such as all music guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion has already been had on this talk page, WP:Genres and probably on every 1980s bands article talk page. New Romantic is no more a music genre than is Black Music or Gay Music it is a generalism given by the media to some Synthpop groups of the early 1980s who dressed a certain way. It is in exactly the same genre position as Mod (lifestyle). You don’t label say Madness (band) as a MOD genre in the infobox they are Ska and or Two Tone. MOD was the fashion cultural influence but Ska and Two Tone were the music genres. New Romantic is the cultural fashion influence and Synthpop and Electropop the music genre. The reason that New Romantic is not considered a genre is simple, explain how New Romantic SOUNDS different to Synthpop? This article is now protected to stop idiots messing with the genres, the more people mess about by adding their own genres the more edit wars are created, first go to that genres project page and see if they consider Duran Duran to be New Wave then add the label rather than randomly adding your own original research. Archivey (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said...I think atleast Pop/Rock and Synthpop should be added as well.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah...have a hissy fit and lock the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's normally what happens when a page gets vandalized isn't it? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

yah people making up there own genres like Alternative Pop lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE, IN THE MAIN OPENING LINES, LET'S STOP CALLING D.D. A "ROCK" BAND. THEY ARE A BAND, PERIOD. They have done many genres in their career, granted, but Rock certainly isn't the main one and not even among the top five they did. Calling them a Rock band is totally inappropriate. Just having a guitar in tow, and hitting a distortion pedal once in a while don't qualify as "rock". Thanks.

What? How is rock music NOT in the top 5 of anything they did? Have you listened to the Wedding Album, Medazzaland and Pop Trash etc? And don't forget they are in a game called...ROCK BAND 2 GNRDemocrazy (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The three genres listed as of 23:13 on 3rd March 2009 should stand and be left alone: pop rock, synthpop, electropop. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I fixed this just now. Ronark (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No actually Alternative Rock should be listed as it was one of the main sounds they used in their later career. And New Wave is one they used throughout their entire career from the beginning. New Romantic could be added as well. There are plenty of sources that list them under these genres for example http://gighit.com/artists/duran-duran/. I'm adding them back in. They've only done Synthpop and Electropop with Big Thing and some songs of Medazzaland and Red Carpet Massacre, so why do them two genres get special preference? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, keep Alternative Rock and New Wave in the Genres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.148.225 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Synthpop is per definition as sub-genre of New Wave, so the latter is redundant and need not be there. New Romantic was not a music genre but a fashion movement. – IbLeo (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that's no reason to leave New Wave out is it? in Synthpop music the synth is the dominant instrument. Duran Duran have always used real drums, real bass and real guitars as well as a synth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.81.10 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but so did tons of other acts in the list of synthpop artists. The point I am trying to make is of logical character: When you say something is a cat you don't also have to say it's an animal, as it's implied in the definition of "cat". It's the same with synthpop and New Wave; as synthpop is defined as a subgenre of New Wave, there is no need to mention the latter. – IbLeo (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New Wave is Americentric. There is life outside the United States of America. Places even produce bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Duran Duran call themselves 'New Wave' on their | official MySpace page. I'm British and to me Duran Duran are definitely 'new wave', so I feel the allegation of 'americacentricism' is unfounded. Maybe you could explain why you feel so strongly about this label, which might help to resolve this matter amicably. Jammycaketin (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Their MySpace page is run by an American called Nathan Stack. You want a better source? Ask Nick Rhodes, he said 'New Wave' is 'Punk' music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a verifiable source for that, such as a published interview? Otherwise, I'm sorry, but it just sounds like hearsay. My point was that the band seems happy enough to be described as 'new wave' on an official site of theirs, regardless of who is responsible for updating the website/profile (I doubt there are many bands who maintain their own websites). I'm sorry, but the matter has yet to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Jammycaketin (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Duran Duran ARE New Wave! Google search New Wave Bands and you will see Duran Duran in most, if not all lists. "New Wave is Americentric" says 66.194.44.250. The Cure, Eurythmics and Depeche Mode, as well as newer bands like Kaiser Chiefs have it listed as a genre and they are...wait for it...BRITISH! A-Ha are from Norway. And Duran Duran sound no different from the other early 80's New Wave acts. So that silly claim does not mean anything. And Nick Rhodes' official MySpace has him listed as a New Wave artist. It's about sources, not one person's opinion.

Has nick Rhodes ever denied that the band are New Wave? This debate is becoming, and I'm going to be honest, stupid. Just because a music genre sounds American is no reason to remove it. Bullet For My Valentine are Metalcore, which sounds American even though they are from Wales, and fellow countrymen Lostprophets are considered Nu metal, even though it was created in America. It seems that Wikipedia is all about one person's opinion, rather than the facts. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One person? >

The three genres listed as of 23:13 on 3rd March 2009 should stand and be left alone: pop rock, synthpop, electropop. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I fixed this just now. Ronark (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's turned into the old "I'm a member of Wikiopedia so I am right and you're unsigned so you're wrong" Always remember, if it's on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dom Brown

Can someone look into the status of Dom Brown related to his current billing on WP as an official member of DD? I have seen no evidence anywhere that he is an official member. The DD official site, as well we their official myspace page do not indicate that he is such. Therefore, he should not recieve this false billing on WP. This should be rectified asap, both for the integrity of WP as well as for DD. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.184.26 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing that says Dominic Brown is actually a member of Duran Duran. He is listed as one in the infobox, the navigation box at the bottom of Duran Duran-related pages, and in the chart of the band's membership, but this is not supported by the text of the Duran Duran and Dominic Brown articles nor by any of the sources they cite. This should be changed, or if a reliable source says he is a member of the band, this should be explicitly stated with proper citations.

(Moreover, their Web site does not seem to treat Brown as a full member, showing only the four remaining original members on the splash page and referring to him as a "touring guitarist" and various similar phrases when he is mentioned in the News section.)

Note that I am not asking that all mention of him be purged; there is nothing wrong with acknowledging his recent contributions (as both of the above-mentioned articles do perfectly well). He just shouldn't be listed as a member of the band. 69.154.180.230 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have no idea and no preference about this. It sounds like you might have a valid point, so I propose you contact the user who added Brown as a member (looking at the article history (it seens to be Mad Hatter in this edit) and ask him about his rationale. – IbLeo (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If mad hatter can arbitrarily add Dom Brown as a member, then why can't one of us just as easily remove him from the band members lists and chart? (I have done an extensive search and I have found no place, whatsoever, where Brown is mentioned as having officially joined Duran Duran. He should therefore be removed from the members lists and chart ASAP! The integity of Wikipedia is being further comprimised as each day goes by.) Why cant someone deal with this? Doesnt WP have authority figures who can deal with such things? It is practically vandalism, in my view.

Removed from infobox, timeline and template. 69.154.185.205 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough — if nobody comes around and changes it back, then consensus has been reached. It would be even better if you added a reliable source to support the statement that he is only a touring guitarist. I propose you read some of the policies and guidelines to better understand how Wikipedia works. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope is stays like it is now. There is no source saying he is only a touring/session guitarist, much as there is no source to say that I was not born on Mars. By default, although you dont know anything about me, you do know I was born on Earth. Same idea with Brown. He is known to play live and in studio with DD. But, at the same time, we know that the official DD site, as well as their myspace (plus the liner notes from their most recent release) all clearly state that the current official members are LeBon, Rhodes, J. Taylor and R. Taylor. It is just that simple. This automatically makes him a session/touring guitarist. I would think that we can take THEM at their word as to whom is in their band and whom isnt.

Timbaland and Justin Timberlake are members of Duran Duran?

Is this someone's idea of a pisstake? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I made my point.

Don't do disruptive shit like that, for any reason. It had nothing to do with my removing Brown - I wasn't aware of your little shenanigans until after I had changed it - so there's nothing to pat yourself on the back about. 69.154.185.205 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I made a good and useful point, so I will continue to pat myself on the back, as long as I like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.184.26 (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just me saying that, it's a well-established Wikipedia policy. And considering that no-one appears to have made the connection you were trying to make, no, your behaviour was not "useful" in any way, shape or form. 69.154.185.205 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in any event, I am glad that I brought this up and it finally appears to be resolved, which is a good thing for everybody, I would think.

Agree. So now that everyone is happy, let's all work together to improve the article further. – IbLeo (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much agreed.--65.9.140.183 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Official Tenure of Campbell and Cuccurullo

These two members both officially joined the band in 1989, during the recording of the Liberty album. I believe that the timeline of official members' tenure, as well as the text of the article, should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.212.241 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article's text already express clearly this fact: "The next album Big Thing (1988) (...). By the next year, after touring for the album finished, the band regained a five-man membership as Cuccurullo and tour drummer Sterling Campbell were made full members of Duran Duran". The timeline, I guess, reflects the fact that they both played as session musicians on earlier albums before gaining full membership. – IbLeo (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That is my point. The official timeline should not include their time as session players.

I personally agree with you. I propose you give it a couple of days to let other people speak up, and if nobody disagrees, go ahead and do the change. – IbLeo (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy Wickett, Simon Colley, Alan Curtis, and Jeff Thomas

I removed Andy Wickett, Simon Colley, Alan Curtis, and Jeff Thomas as "former members" as I don't see this claim backed up by the article. The infobox should not contain any information not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, none of these guys are mentioned in any of the album articles. – IbLeo (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that is definitely not a good thing you did there. All four of these members are specifically mentioned by Rhodes as being former official members in their 2005 official tour book. And there is also an officially authorised book called "Duran Duran: Their Story" from late 1982, which talks specifically about the tenures of these four. Plus one of their biggest hits, Girls on Film, was co-written by Wickett, while he was their lead singer, which is specifically stated in A. Taylor's book. And Colley was their ORIGINAL bass player. (J. Taylor was lead guitarist at that time.) These two, especially, should not be deleted. But, I also think Curtis and Thomas should be kept, as they WERE official members at one time, which again, has been verified in official sources.

WP should be added to, not dismantled piece by piece, on a whim.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should incorporate this info into the main article, but I don't think that their names should be removed beforehand, in the same way that a stub article is not deleted first before someone adds to it

Again, let's add useful info...not take away. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?--65.11.212.241 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article is now taken care of. (Although, if someone would like to help with the links to sources and whatnot, that would be appreciated.) If one looks at the info for Girls on Film, however, one will already see that the account of Wickett's involvement , specifically, with the co-creation of that song is covered, along with links to audio, as well as visual, documentation.

Further, I believe the official timeline should be extended backwards, to the band's origin in 1978, to cover these four ex-members.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Basically I removed these people from the infobox because their presence were not supported by the text and backed up by a reliable source. Now you have removed my objection by improving the text and that is a great beginning. You certainly seem to be more knowledgeable about the subject than me (the most recent album I own is Rio :-), and you apparently have the right sources to back up your claims. However, if you don't insert your sources in the text, you risk that another editor will remove your edits by referring to above policy. In order to correctly cite your sources, I can recommend you to read WP:RS (for the guidelines), WP:CS (for the style) and use the great templates on WP:CIT. It's not that complicated, really, it just takes a little time and practice to get into it. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me and I appreciate your above comments and input. To be honest, I am not terribly tech savvy, as for proper means of inserting references and the like. (Also, I have no idea how to properly cite a tour book.) Nevertheless, these things are out there, as I'm sure that thousands (if not, perhaps, millions) of DD fans must have copies of the same sources as I do. So, in light of that, I was hoping that one of those people could cover that part of it (ie..properly shoring up all of the proper references, in the proper WP manner.) And since I did specifically mention those sources by name, in this forum, at least, I am counting on them to come along very soon and, I would think, do just that. If not, I suppose I will have to try to tackle it, myself, as best as possible. Thanks again and cheers to you, as well.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil discussion here, and cooperation towards proper citation. These members, although they were only briefly part of the band, are listed on the band's official site (there's a FAQ link under the "Ask Katy" section which leads to http://www.duranduran.com/wordpress/?page_id=12779 ):

What are all of the “”official”" line-ups in Duran Duran?

The official line ups are:

Stephen Duffy, Simon Colley, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor (1978-1979)

Andy Wickett, Alan Curtis, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor (1979)

Jeff Thomas, Andy Wickett, Alan Curtis, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor (1979)

Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor, Andy Taylor (1980-1985)

Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor (1985-1990)

Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Warren Cuccurullo, Sterling Campbell (1990-1991)

Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Warren Cuccurullo (1991-1997)

Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, Warren Cuccurullo (1997-2001)

Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor, Andy Taylor (2001-2006)

Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor (2006)

Hope that helps to clarify! — Catherine\^talk 09:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input. But, I know the above contains, at minimum, two errors. I know Katy seems like a good source, but using my above mentioned sources, plus JT's site's archive section, plus a bit of logic, one can fairly easily see this.

Firstly, the second lineup mentioned above existed for a time, sans Curtis, as JT played guitar on their first demo. So, the second lineup was actually Wickett, Rhodes, JT and RT. Secondly, in the above listed third lineup, Thomas is listed along with Wickett, but Thomas was their last pre-LeBon singer, having replaced Wickett, for a brief time. According to my sources, they were not together in a single lineup. This would seem to make sense, because why would they have TWO lead singers at once?

In any event, the above is still a good (if not completely accurate) source, as it does originate from a current DD employee, which does, at the very least, contribute one more source which shows that these four members WERE, indeed, official members.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourced information

Someone is removing sourced information from this article. Sureley this is vandalism. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any specific examples? Maybe then we can look into the issue more closely. Jammycaketin (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking through the article edit history, I guess you're referring to the edits made by 66.194.44.250. I don't believe this is vandalism, as he/she seems to object to your use of the terms 'New Wave' and 'Alternative Rock' and questions the reliability of your sources. Maybe it would be best if you could discuss the matter with each other, either on your own talk pages or here, and attempt to come to an amicable solution. Jammycaketin (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Nick Rhodes of DURAN DURAN: "The Clash, The Buzzcocks, Sham 69 and all the other New Wave acts of the time" - Nick Rhodes" ......ie New Wave = Post-Sex Pistols 'punk rock'. If one of the founders of the band uses New Wave as another word for Punk, surely Duran are not 'New Wave' ....right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sex Pistols are listed as one of the bands influences on their official MySpace, on which they are also listed as New Wave and there are plenty of other sources that list them as New Wave. Furthermore not all their music was simply "Synthpop" so why does that get special preference? In "New Wave" music the primary instruments are Drums, Guitar, Bass Guitar and Keyboards, all of which Duran Duran use. And they are known as one of the mainstream New Wave bands. Look up New Wave bands and you will see Duran Duran listed on many music sites. So I see no reason to remove it. Alternative Rock featured in their later material listen to the likes of First Impression, Too Much Information, White Lines, Playing With Uranium etc. And there are music sites that list them as Alternative as well. A-Ha have New Wave and Alternative Rock listed as genres and their music sounds no different. So yes removing this sourced material because of someone's personal opinion is vandalism.

Wrong, pure and simple.

Post-Punk

Should post-punk be added to the list of genres? They started around about the time Post-Punk was big and Nick Rhodes has called them "a group of art school, experimental, post punk rockers"

Not really, they may have started out as Post-punk rockers but they're not really thought of as Post-Punk, I may be wrong though! Thanks for the suggestion by the way Discoh8er (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Genres, Part 2

Page is locked down, thank you! No more vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.222.29 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.

Nick Rhodes, a member of Duran Duran, has quoted on the official Duran Duran site about 'New Wave' bands such as Sham 69 and the Sex Pistols and peopel can't get past the idea that these were punk rock bands...ie New Wave? Time to do your research. It's easy, unsubscribe to the fact that Wikipedia is always right, especially if you are a member and research other pages. Read books, read other parts of the internet. Write to 'Ask Katy' and Duran Duran and get her to ask Nick what he meant.

Go on, see if you can do this before making edits purely for personal reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/04/14/readers-rock-list-eighties-new-wave/
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/TheScientist/new_wave_outposts_top_100_new_wave_artists/
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/182136

Actually I did research the internet and look what I found. Check out the links above. Even Rolling Stone thinks they are a New Wave band. There's plenty of other websites that list them as New Wave. Has Nick Rhodes or the band ever denied they are New Wave? I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you or editing this page. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you or editing this page" is another way of saying you're wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Your research is Americentric. Try reading what I wrote. Nick Rhodes is a member of Duran Duran, start with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No the reason I said that is because I've realised that sources do not matter on Wikipedia, just one person't personal opinion. Why don't you find some proof that DD are NOT a New Wave band? And can you find any proof to back up what Rhodes said? Website, magazine article? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just one? Read the bold text above. Check Duranduran.com for the Rhodes quote, or would that be wasting you precious time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah but did Nick actually deny that the band were new wave? their official myspace lists them as new wave and im sure the band have seen it. if they disagreed then new wave would be swiftly removed from it. if this page keeps getting reverted and reverted over and over its gonna end up locked down.

66.194.44.250 seems to be forgetting something. The New Romantic fashion movement was part of the early New Wave scene, and Duran Duran were one of the bands that brought it into mainstream popularity, and the other bands that sported the fashion were New Wave bands. The video for Planet Earth is a fine example. And 66.194.44.250 I checked out DuranDuaran.com and found articles describing the band as New Wave. 92.20.192.211 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this interview on duranduran.com between Nick Rhodes and Tim Follos from the Washington Post/Express, under the headline Stay Beautiful: Duran Duran. Check it out for yourself.

» EXPRESS: Were you most responsible for putting that song together? » RHODES: Well, no, we did it together. Actually, it came out of a jam between John [Taylor], Roger [Taylor] and I with [producer and Timbaland protege] Nate Hills. We were just playing around and it started to develop. It had a real New Wave feel to it that we liked.

Rhodes has more or less confirmed that they are indeed New Wave and the rest of the band see themselves as New Wave. So 66.194.44.250 I took your advice and checked out duranduran.com and I found exactly what I was looking for. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed Electropop from the genres list, feel that Electropop and Synthpop sound more or less the same. Anyone object? Please feel free to discuss it, thanks! Discoh8er (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. But I do agree with ElectroPop and Synthpop sounding the same...both mechanical rhythms, both Robotic or voice arrangment, and both futuristic. NOt mention the influence to Techno, House music. The only real difference is the scifi lyrics.

Red Carpet Massacre = failure?

Is Red Carpet massacre a failure or not? Most music sites gave it average reviews and sales were bad. is it too early to mention it in the article? 92.11.12.116 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Lay Lady Lay and Instant Karma are listed as singles by D2, yet they were never released at all by the band, only covered. Could someone fix this? Also should we create pages for singles that were released only in certain countries like Last Day On Earth, Breath After Breath and Drowning Man? Thanks! Discoh8er (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Discoh8er (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)