Talk:ABBA

ABBA musical genres

I have added 'Rock and Roll' to the musical genre list as ABBA are a 'Rock and Roll' group whether they are 'Popular' or not. This is not just an odd bout of madness as ABBA have been referred to as a Rock and Roll band many times up until recently. 'Pop' is actually a group rather than a genre hence Eminem is Pop, yet he is nothing like the Beatles and ABBA.

ABBA have even done a few heavier Rock songs ('Watch Out' being the most notable) and the drums beats on 'Hey, Hey Helen' are stereotypically Rock drum beats....I am a drummer in a Folk Heavy/Medium Rock group. I think the guitar solos in songs like the album version of 'I'm a Marionette' are very stereotypically Rocking. It is also worth noting that a lot of the Disco songs are much more 'Rocking' live. The full version of the disco song 'Eagle' also has a very Rock and Roll section...though that is a Disco song undeniably.

They do Disco songs but they are not really a Disco group (neither are the Bee Gees really...though there is nothing wrong with Disco or Disco bands), they only do one really Disco Album and a few disco songs that appear on albums from round about the same time. I don't think we should remove 'Disco' from musical styles part however 'Rock and Roll' has a right to be included on this page as they did more Rock and Roll songs than disco songs (I own all the albums apart from some combilation albums, ABBA Live and 'Gracias Por La Música' which is a Spanish language combilation album').

I would hardly call ABBA a pop group during the eighties as they were far from popular!

- User:Doctor_Hesselius

I think that ABBA mostly is a Pop group. As said in the [pop music|pop music] article, ABBA initiated a new revolution of pop. But think about it, ABBA's biggest hits: 'Dancing Queen' and 'Fernando'. Are they even close to being Rock'n'roll?

You talk about 'Watch out' and 'Hey, Hey Helen', but these were hits from their early years. Most of their hits in the latest 70's, when they were pretty well known, were Pop. Rock'n'roll was present in some of their songs yes, so I think we should leave it there in the Genre section.

But in the main page, we should keep it pop. ABBA has far more pop songs than rock'n'roll ones.

From Detlef to Faus 18:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if they did have 'far more' pop songs than Rock and Roll songs it still should say 'Rock and Roll' in the genre section as you have pointed out. The genre section did include 'Rock and Roll' until very recently. Also 'Pop' is really what is popular at the time...a lot of people do not think of it as a proper genre. I am happy with leaving 'Pop Group' in the main section as they are indeed a 'Pop Group' (as they are indeed popular!).

'Pop' used to stand for Popular music (I know this as a musician) however in the era of musical elitist I don't really know. 'Pop' is a group rather than a genre, Wikipedia even acknowledges that it is made out of different genres though it still classifies it as a genre.

Are ABBA rappers or Hip hoppers? Hip Hop and Rap is THE Pop music of today. It you go throw the albums from 'Ring, Ring' onwards you will find that most of the songs use Rock techniques and thus fall into the Rock category.

ABBA's style is very much like sixties Rock and Roll, maybe because my music is mostly sixties Rock and Roll I can notivce this. Some ABBA songs are heavier than a lot of sixties Rock and Roll songs but some are not. They did Disco, Rock and Roll and many other styles.........I will not count 'Europop' as that is the studidest 'genre' I have ever heard of!

Fernando is an odd song and is hardly like a 'Pop song' at all (if what most Wikipedians define as a pop song is true). 'Dancing Queen' is a disco song (Disco like Rock and Roll is it's own genre though in the 70s it was put into the Pop group due to it's popularity). On 'Ring Ring' all songs are Rock and Roll songs like the Rock and Roll songs from the sixties Including the song 'Rock & Roll Band'. On 'Waterloo' even the title track is a Rock and Roll song as is 'Watch Out' and 'King Kong Song' and 'Ring Ring' (also on Ring Ring, it is light Rock and Roll like a lot of sixties songs....though the drumbeat is fairly heavy). On 'ABBA' there was 'Mamma Mia' (Yes it is Rock and Roll, again more like sixties Rock and Roll than seventies....guitars solos, heavy-ish drumbeat what more could you ask for?). SOS (Rock and Roll ballad), Hey Hey Helen (really Rocking!), Man in The Middle, Rock Me (obviously!!!), So Long and the US. Folk Song Medley though this would technically be 'Folk Rock' (though the 'On Top of Old Smokey' part is done in a similar style to Fernando I suppose).......my band is a Folk Rock band so I give two thumbs up. On Arrival there is 'Knowing Me, Knowing You', 'Tiger' and 'Why Did It have To Be Me?'. Skip Voulez-Vous as that is all disco apart from 'Chiquitita' and possibly 'The King Has Lost His Crown'. On 'Super Trouper' there was 'Elaine', 'Me and I', 'On and On and On' and looking back at some sixties songs 'Super Trouper' does classify also.

Before you say that a lot of the songs I have mentioned are catchy I would like to point out that 1) Almost all the songs by Queen are catchy 2) Most Who songs are 3) most Beatles songs are 4) Most The Sweet songs are...........these are again Rock and Roll bands, ones I also happe to like. Also:

1) ABBA were nominated for entry to 'The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame'.....though unlike unimportant rubbish like 'The Sex Pistols' they didn't get in this time round.

2) Agnetha and Frida are both at #70 on 'VH1's 100 Greatest Women of Rock N Roll'...........why they are not higher is beyond me!

I don't really care about the main section but taking away 'Rock and Roll' from the genre section would make the article one sided as many do think of ABBA as a Rock and Roll band and they did do Rock and Roll songs. Taking it away would make the article somewhat incorrect and bias against the people who consider them a Rock and Roll band (which includes celebrities, music experts, my friends, me and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominators and VH1!).

- Hesselius.

Sure, you have a good point. Let's just remember that 'Ring Ring' was an album that didn't leave Sweden at that time, so it isn't usually classified as an ABBA album; and in addition, the name of the band wasn't ABBA by that time. It was "Agnetha, Björn, Benny and Frida". Detlef 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah true though it should be counted as an ABBA album due to the officially re-release. ;)

-Hesselius.

Ring Ring *was* released outside Sweden at the time - in Australia, South Africa, Japan and Mexico (if not other countries as well) in 1973/74, in West Germany in 1974 or 75 (repackaged as Honey, Honey), and reissued in Australia in 1975 under the ABBA banner.

Why compare ABBA with The Beatles?

Why add "Like The Beatles, they are considered to be..." in the introduction? Why mention Beatles at all? ABBA is ABBA and they don't need The Beatles comparison as a sort of validation. Also, as much as I like ABBA they are not in the same league as The Beatles. Probably, ABBA are comparable with The Beatles sales-wise worldwide, except the United States, but The Beatles were not only bestselling group and music innovators, they were also a social phenomenon. ABBA is just a very popular group, no more than that, and ABBA members themseves always stressed that.

No. The Beatles were not a social phenomenon. Pop music groups are not social phenomena. That's twaddle. They made good music but the Beatles mystique is hype and "jumping on the bandwagonism'. I like the way ABBA was unpretentious. They considered themselves entertainers. That's what they were. That's what the Beatles were.

I agree. I think we should only compare them if we are talking about the albums sold. If we want to say that only The Beatles and Elvis sold more than ABBA.

But if we don't say that, there is no need.

Detlef.

Since this is the English-language Wikipedia ABBA article, and there are Wikipedia articles about ABBA available in other languages, I believe it is important to keep in mind the audience reading this particular article. In the US, the biggest and most influential English language pop music market in the world, general comparison of ABBA with The Beatles would seem laughable. ABBA were and still are very successful here, but not only their American sales are no match to The Beatles', as musicians and personalities ABBA are quite anonymous and faceless. Also, unlike The Beatles and quite a few other acts, ABBA don't exert any substantial cultural significance and/or influence in America. For example, there's only one small-format book about ABBA written by the US author, but even this author was born and raised outside the US.

I am convinced that for a Wikipedia ABBA article to be credible it is crucial for the contributors to keep their "fan emotions" (if they are ABBA fans) under control, keep the FACTS straight and think about those who will be reading this article. It's not a place to vent an unabashed enthusiasm for the favorite artist. It's an encyclopedia entry, not a hagiography.

Yes, Scholar91, I do agree with you. This encyclopedia should and must be impartial, and in my opinion it's not acceptable to compare The Beatles with ABBA.

From Detlef to Faus 21:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Detlefaus, Can you remove that Beatles reference form the Introduction and perhaps leave only that "they are one the most popular bands of all time" or "in the history of popular music"? For some reason I can't do it, because in order to edit the Introduction I have to go for an option "edit this page" (there's no separate "edit" for Introduction) and when I try to save the page, part of the article goes missing.

Scholar91 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.

Detlef 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

ABBA are internationally big, as any American would find out by reading the page. Whether or not ABBA are as big in the US is not really important. It is a fact that both ABBA and the Beatles are the biggest bands ever. Adding something saying that the Beatles and ABBA are both considered 'big bands' is not 'fan emotions' and it certainly isn't trying to compare the two bands or say that one is better than the other, it is about facts, it is an impartial comment however saying that they are one of the biggest bands of all time is acceptable aslong as it does say "ONE of the biggest....". The part about Popular music is not needed as they are bigger than most non-popular musicians anyway. ;-)

- Hesselius.

- Hesselius.

Hesselius, I still don't understand why you want this Beatles comparison in the article. It does not add any REAL information about ABBA as a group. "Internationally big" means many things and not only sales, but, really, ABBA can only be compared with Beatles sales-wise. At least, at this point in history. You can't seriously compare their cultural and social impact. If you really want that Beatles comparison to be included, I think you should say that "commercially" ABBA is one of the biggest bands of all time. Like Billboard wrote (September 6, 1979), "Abba's record sales have equalled most of the achievements of the Beatles in the 1960s". There are some later references to that effect, but again it's about sales not overall impact.

Scholar91 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-read what I have said. I am not comparing them however both are very big bands, I am happy with it saying ABBA are "one of the biggest bands..". ABBA are not only commercially big hence they are icons of the seventies, yes the Beatles are (now) bigger but that doesn't matter, that is not the point. The point is that ABBA are the Beatles are the biggest bands due to record sales and musical impact. Adding something saying that "like the Beatles, ABBA are considered to be one of the biggest bands ever" isn't anti-Beatle or anti-ABBA. I really do not understand you objection to having a mention of the Beatles in this article (which it had for a long time until it was removed recently), is it an anti-ABBA thing or an anti-Beatle thing? It does seem a bit strange getting uptight because the Beatles were mentioned in a fact!

We shall just have "ABBA are considered to be one of the biggest bands ever" as that would be factual and would stop all the "Beatles should not get any mention despite they were the biggest band until ABBA arrived in the seventies" stuff. We should also remove any mention of Elvis out of the Beatles article.

- User:Doctor Hesselius

About the 'cover' picture

What do you think about a new picture to the 'cover' of this page, substituting the ABBA logo one? Can we get a picture that is considered fair and that shows all the 4 members of the band?

What do you guys think of this picture? It's the cover of ABBA's "Definitive Collection", so it would be legal? http:/upwiki/wikipedia/zh/f/f6/Abba.jpg From Detlef to Faus 23:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, I guess. Frankly, I don't understand what type of pictures are allowed. Can anyone enlighten me?

Scholar91 00:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read little about it, but you can only add pictures that are considered public and don't have a copyright that forbades you from using it. There are exceptions like logos, and albums covers... From Detlef to Faus 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and feel free to add more abba's hits in the main page menu.

Detlef 01:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"ABBA remains the most successful act ever to come from Scandinavia"

They were/are one of the biggest bands in the world, why delete the mention of their international popularity? All other articles about the popular bands mention that they were or are internationally big, last time I checked the Beatles articke did (though I have not checked that article for weeks!

- Hesselius

this claim is accurate but the 370 million records sold claim is fairytail - the maths do not add up to make it 370 million records! For ABBA the US (10.5 certified album sales and 2 gold singles)is (and was) not a significant market for them. The rest of the world was - certainly single sales. 10 million singles and 15 million albums in the Uk (their biggest market) accounts for 25 million records (incl US sales 37.5 records - Us and Uk represent 46% of the world market) 332 million to go!!! i have seen the picture with the claim of 360 what ever the hidden agenda is of their record company. Provide a plausible breakdown of sales per country ND

Actually it is not fairly tale but fairly accurate. In 1999 for the opening of mamma mia musical the record company stated over 360 million sold albums and presented the 3 attending members (Björn,Benny,Frida) with a certificate for it. So as far as official numbers go the number is correct (see also the quoted references in the article). And to give some perspective about record sales in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists There probably a lot to say about the accuracy of those published figures in general, however I see no reason to consider the abba figures as lees reliable as the others out there. Also you analysis of markets do not look convincing to me at all. Just take a look at the sales figures of other artists (in particular those hardly selling in the US). Now take into consideration in particular the markets in continental Europe and Japan. --Kmhkmh 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving up on this article

When reading the most recent revisions of Introduction to ABBA article, it struck me how useless and unproductive it is to try to make it a *normal* encyclopedia entry . There will always be additions making this article look like a joke.

1. "ABBA (1972–1982) was a Swedish pop music group characterised by an uplifting but melancholic sound."

"uplifting but melancholic sound"?? What is it, some kind of an oxymoron, or a superficial chit-chat?

2. "They remain a fixture of radio playlists and continue to shift many hit singles and albums."

ABBA continue to shift hit singles?? What was the last hit single they have "shifted"? And - "remain a fixture", "continue to shift" - that's hardly a style appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

3. "They have singlehandedly placed Swedish music in the mainstream, and done much to establish pure pop as an equal among more "hip" music genres." "In early 1982 the uncharaceristically intense title track – which has been since linked to Joy Division, Giorgio Moroder and the Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows"

These are examples of what's called typical Weasel Words

I'm giving up on this article...

Scholar91 12:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is wikipedia for you, Weasel words and biased views run riot. Commonsense is substituted for strange opinions (aka the Hygelac article and the Geats article!). _________

This is what I read in the "history comments": "Reinstated useful and atypical single-sentence ABBA info [as opposed to the over-indulgent, quotes-heavy and ABBA-buff-like nature of much of the bio's text])"

Since it was me who put the majority of those quotes into the bio, I need to give a brief explanation. The idea was to give the scope of how the pop music establshment as represented by the critics at the time viewed ABBA. Not some "useful and atypical single-sentence ABBA info" coming from nobody but direct quotes from some very prominent cultural commentators, like Simon Frith, for example. It may be "quotes-heavy" but it gives a factually accurate and competent analysis of ABBA legacy coming from professional critics not shunning the critical views of the group. As it often happens with articles written by fans, the "analysis" ultimately ends up as an ode to the artist. "ABBA-buff-like nature" probably means that it's written by people who try to be as factually accurate as possible and try to avoid all those well-known superficial and glossy (and wrong) cliches - "bigger than Volvo". "singlehandedly put Sweden onto music map" etc - associated with ABBA and prefer to give less known but no less important information about the band.

Scholar91 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But "uplifting but melancholic" is a great description of ABBA's music. Look at Mamma Mia - the happiest sounding song in the known universe, but it's the point of view of a woman who's man continually cheats on her, but she just can't leave.

---

Anonymous,

But this is YOUR own subjective - basically, a weasel worded - description of ABBA music inappropriately thrown into the Introduction about the group, and such descriptions are completely unsuitable for Wikipedia that's supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an exercise of subjective opinions of contributors. Unfortunately, descriptions like yours make many Wikipedia entries a joke.

You can refer to the printed opinions of professional critics, musicologists, musicians - people who are more or less qualified to do it - when discussing ABBA music in the article, and that will be fine.

Scholar91 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The most recent singles "shifted" by ABBA was "Hung up" by Madonna in 2006.

For someone who gave up, it's amazing that you're still here. But that's weasel words for you.

And uplifting but melodramatic doesn't exactly have to be an oxymoron. Like the example given above, a song about a cheating spouse is not uplifting, but the music sure is. --The White Light 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Article getting out of hand

It's been a while since I looked in here. This article has always been a bit problematic, as with many Wikipedia articles that have a fairly large audience, but it is truly getting out of hand. Basically, the article is WAAAAY too long and over-detailed - obsessively so - and needs a great big editorial axe taking to it. Trouble is, any attempt is likely to be controversial, as everyone seemingly has their favourite factoid they feel precious about. I'm not saying it's all bad - there is a useful amount of North-American info added, though again perhaps over details. May I suggest that merging the whole lot into one great big timeline is making the article unwieldy? Perhaps a better idea is to have a main career overview timeline, followed by an "Abba in North America" section that condenses and separates that info into one section? That might be a start. But a bigger axe than that is still needed. Who is going to be brave enough to wield it? Contributors need to take a step back and as objectively as possible, ask themselves whether much of what is here could be scrubbed without losing the overall picture. I believe a shorter article (much like it started out) would be of much higher quality. Graham 09:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Compared with other Wikipedia entries - see Roxette, for example - ABBA article is relatively short. Still, I would cut Trivia section

Scholar91 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Make separate articles for various subject matters, put short summaries of these into the main article. For example, a lot of the history and discussion of various albums can be farmed out into separate articles on each album. The solo careers shouldn't be in here at all (all 4 members have their own pages). One could even have articles such as "Fashion inspired by Abba", or "Abba live" on their live performances. Etc, etc.--345Kai 07:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding back fansite link

I agree that WP is not a directory but excising *everything* that's not "official" is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. I think having the official site and *one* fansite is certainly acceptable. As such, I'm adding back the one fansite that someone else recently tried to add. If someone finds a better site to replace it with, that's fine too, of course. -MichaelBluejay 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't that it had to be official, it was to stop the floodgates of continuous persons adding new links, as contributers thought the site they like is better than that selected. By selecting the one site (which has links to all other sites on it's website) was an agreed to compromise. As such, sorry to say, are reversing your edit. 60.234.242.196 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Whether to add one good fansite

This is a dispute about whether it is appropriate to list one good fansite in the External Links section, or none. 18:06, 10 December 2006

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

For -

1. Few things could be considered more relevant than a link to a site specifically devoted to covering the topic of the article.
2. Many (most?) other articles about popular bands have at least one link to a fan site. (See Rolling Stones, Blondie, Nirvana, Dixie Chicks.) No compelling reason has been offered why this article must be an exception.
3. Listing something than the official source is just good journalism. Third-party resources about a topic are at the heart of including diverse views, and not giving the official source a monopoly.
4. The fear has been expressed that adding a single good fansite to the external links will cause a run of people trying to link other fansites to the article. I disagree. People will try to add other fansites to the article whether we list zero or one. I don't see how adding a single fansite will cause people to try to add other fansites in greater numbers. In fact, it's quite the opposite: The lack of even *one* fansite rather screams to WP editors familiar with music-related articles that an unofficial source is "missing", and they may seek to rectify that by adding one.
5. Even if adding a single fansite caused people to try to add even more fansites, that would not be a good argument for not including the one fansite. One might as well say, "We shouldn't have an article about George W. Bush, because it will be a target for vandalism and heated exchange." Our decisions about what goes into the articles should be based on what's good for the article, not on what others might do in response.
6. A con argument is essentially that "we have to open it up to everyone [all the fansites] or to no one". Such a claim is bizzarre. There's nothing stopping editors from agreeing on the best (or best handful) of external links -- the same as they do with all other articles.

-MichaelBluejay 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Against - (I copied and pasted from previous Talk, but others feel free to update/add to this.)

1. [The decision to not include even one fansite link] was to stop the floodgates of continuous persons adding new links, as contributers thought the site they like is better than that selected. By selecting the one site (which has links to all other sites on it's website) was an agreed to compromise.
2. It is only necessary to provide the link to ABBAsite and Users can select any site they want from there. This also stops everyone bickering on their site being more important than others and therefore should be added. All website owner sites/fans have made efforts to make 'the best' site possible, so either it should open to everyone or just to the official site.

# Concensus was reached already.

# Links 'are' available to these sites elsewhere. Wikipedia is not about linking, but verifying.

# What fansite is exceptionally better than the others that it should be included? 60.234.242.196 07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on RfC

And where did these supposed [pro] statements come from? There is no archiving of this discussion page, so all comments made are here already. However, comments for each.

1. The topic is ABBA, and all fan-sites are devoted to the topic. How does this therefore stop everyone laying claim that their site is derserving to be included?
2. Yes there was. It was agreed to by interested persons at that time. Concensus is very compelling.
3. Good journalism has been achieved by having verifable referencing in the article. If these sites were a good source reference, then they would be referenced already.
4. I have had this one used against me all the time. Hard as it is to accept, it does seem to be the wikipedia way.
5. History says a lot. Once there were 5 links to fansites, then this ballooned to 30 - 50. Pruning was constant. If the official site has the links to the others already, what is the issue then? The article is about ABBA, not to promote fansites. 60.234.242.196 07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm having a hard time accepting arguments from someone who puts CON arguments in the PRO section of an RfC, and whose understanding of consensus is certainly not informed by his or her ability to spell that word correctly.

That is just rudeness, not discussion. 60.234.242.196 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the supposed consensus, I see agreement from exactly two (count 'em) registered editors here, way back in April. When you say "Concensus [sic] is very compelling" based on the comments of two registered editors, that strikes me as kind of silly.

I count 3 who participated. Regardless of them being registered or not. I count 0 who wanted the links to stay. Before you comment that I cannot count either, again, knowledge of the original discussion allows me to know that two of the comments were from the same person.60.234.242.196 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, WP is a living, breathing project. No decision gets to be set in stone forever. Consensus is never final.

Agreed. That is why you have raised this discussion, and that is why I am commenting on it. Just because my opinion differs does not make me wrong (or correct). You 'attack' back and did not even qualify any answers. 60.234.242.196 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As for where the pro statements came from, please note that the heading says "Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute." It does NOT say "Previous statements by editors."

This does not explain where the comments come from. 60.234.242.196 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your other concerns are already covered in my Pro arguments. Also, I have not seen any compelling reason as to why the ABBA article should be different from so many other band articles, which freely list at least one good fansite. -MichaelBluejay 07:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Your other concerns are already covered in my Pro arguments." I do not agree. However you have answered where the comments came from (i.e. "my" Pro arguments.) As for compelling reasons, I stated several reasons, with the most important being that it was agreed to - that is why it is different to other band articles. That is the only difference. As you say consensus is never final. So remember 'why' you put this up for discussion, and allow Users to discuss it without being insulted, and respect their views also. 60.234.242.196 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What should and shouldn't be in the intro

The intro should, IMO, contain the names of the four musicians, and how they are related.

It should explain where the name ABBA came from.

It should not contain such details as who could and couldn't write music.

Since I was just looking, and don't know anything about the band, I am not going to edit the intro myself. Ronstew 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the intro in detail, I agree with you. I'll try roughing out a new draft and see how that looks... -Kemyou 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Too Long?

I came looking for some information on abba and was confronted by an intimidating wall of text. I recomend shortening and cutting some information.

I could not agree more. The highlights are buried in obscure detail after obscure detail. Remember the hallmarks of good non-fiction: brevity and clarity. Ronstew 14:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ABBA article is dumbed down

One jerk has removed ALL quotes from press reviews/features about Abba that were in the article before and noone seems to care. Does it indicate it's "better" to have a dumbed down version without any decent analysis of ABBA legacy whatsoever? Sad..

Scholar91 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We have to look it up, however I noticed that someone really removed the quotes from that part of the article. In my opinion, they should be reinstated, even if the article is too big. That's because we cannot have an article without the quotes from the legacy. Lately, I have been doing some images/minor changes to the article only.

User:Detlefaus 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you care about this article, put your effort where it is best used - organise the information, then clean up the writing. Once the whole article is rewritten for clarity and flow, it will be clear which information is dross and can be removed. Two points for editing: (1)Main Idea First. (2)Just because it is true, does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias are mot meant to be meticulously detailed. I don't know whether the article has been dumbed down or not; I just know that it is nigh unreadable. Ronstew 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No. After reading the ABBA article at the time, I thought those quotes were getting a little bit tiresome. Every single paragraph contained at least one quote, and there were many paragraphs in this article. In fact, the reviews for their last two albums had their own paragraphs! Do you really think people really care about the opinion of a few music magazines? 137.205.24.50 11:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hello,

I started cleaning up this article since it is full of things which shouldn't be written in an Encyclopedia file. Such things as: trivia, awards, curiosities. I did this because many people have been asking the editors to make the article conciser, more objective, etc. However, I didn't delete anything. The trivia is still in the article, but where it should be (if it talked about SOS, then it's in the SOS part). The awards, and parodies are in other pages since they aren't specifically about ABBA.

I haven't started yet to clean/organize the texts. Help is indeed needed, because the removal of remaining weasel words, unsubstanciated claims and unnecessary information (like if ABBA could or could not write music) is a tough job.

Some pictures have also been added to illustrate the article more, but feel free to remove them if you think it's flooding the article (which I don't, since it's nice to illustrate). Nevertheless, the removal of trash should be the priority.

Moreover, in the talk page, some templates have been added (which I think will help), plus the archive has been made. If you need to re-discuss any of the archive subjects, just bring them up again here.

Despite all these problems, our big one is that we NEED MORE REFERENCES.

Thanks. Detlef ^♪♫∆ 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

altered some headers for objectivity and npov--71.97.135.104 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

194.46.226.66 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1979: Agnetha and Björn's divorce

Doesn't actually mention their divorce in this scetion.

194.46.226.66 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are o so right -will fill in text  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.120.28 (talk) 16:26, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable narrator in "Money, Money, Money"

Hello. We are discussing here whether the narrator of Money, Money, Money is unreliable or not. I would be most grateful if you could drop by, read my explanation (it’s down at the bottom of the page), as well as the definition of the literary device (Unreliable narrator), of course, and state your opinion on the subject.

Thank you!

Marquis de Barrabas

--89.152.28.111 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

...and, of course, because there is a disagreement, if you have a reliable source, be sure to bring it there, too, as per WP:RS and WP:NOR. Calbaer 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Infobox

Somebody seems to have vandalized the infobox by adding stuff that prevented the infobox from showing properly. I fixed it Iaberis 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It should say how to pronounce it

is it said or spelt? This should be said in the into, being capitalized one might assume that it is spelt out--seeing as I am not confident enough I think it should be confirmed. It is said, correct?TrevorLSciAct 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is said, like the first syllable of 'abbey' and the last of 'Alabama'. And I spent much time yesterday correcting the English & changing 'ABBA' to 'Abba', which is normal in English - so please no-one change it back! Rothorpe 17:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, now somebody has changed it back. The spirit of pedantry is alive & well... Rothorpe 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

'ABBA' as being said in swedish? :) Rothorpe's suggesting 'abbey' + 'alabama' is a good guideline, but I feel it unnessesairy in this case.

The only problem is, nobody can agree how to pronounce it. Even the members themselves have pronounced it differently in interviews. (But it makes for fun fights on fansites!) SarahFyra451 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Ok, Abba has always been one of my favorite groups but I stumble across this site and notice that there are pretty much "NO" references on where all this material came from. Benny and Born decided to write a song together... that's nice, where did this info come from? In 1977 a concert in Oslo attracted immense media attention... where did this come from? I could have put 50 fact citations in this long article but it would have taken too long. I didn't read the peer review but it must have been merciless on the lack of references. I hope it gets cleaned up because there can't be a more important band in this wiki. Fyunck(click) 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Working on it -all references and links -promise to clean up

Title change to Abba, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Relevant rules: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. If this isn't an acronym (and no one calls this group Ay bee bee ay), this needs to be changed in titles and and articles. / edgarde 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! However, you'll have to find someone else to move the page as I'm still relatively new and don't know how. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me | Articles touched by my noodly appendage 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard to do. What's holding me back is finding consensus for this move. So far on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums I'm hearing only counter-arguments.

One thing I could use some help with: it's my impression that Abba's organization encourages the allcaps spelling. I could use a source for that. / edgarde 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. See Kiss (band). The only problem is it will have to be Abba (band) as the name written normally will require a disambiguation term. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style must have some clause about acronyms. I'll go look. Until then, this page has been reverted back to the original and this page has been added to my watch-like-a-hawk-for-changes list, which is quite lengthy at the moment. - PGSONIC 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MOS-CL#All caps no. 6. Just64helpin 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an acronym, but a name derived from initials. Not the same thing; an acronym stands for the real formal name of something. However, "Abba" (however written) was their name. As such, it should conform to the MoS and should be returned to "Abba". ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "For the article title, follow the lead of outside sources and use the most common spelling and capitalization," which is ABBA. Yes, its in the next "mixed' section, but as soon as its not ABBA, that would apply. It seems to make the most sense to me, as well. Its what their official site has, what most people will enter, etc. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not how things work around here. Wikipedia does not use all caps on names ("Avoid writing in all capitals"). "Abba" is not a true acronym, but a name derived from initials: it can't be written A.B.B.A.; the group isn't "properly" referred to as "Björn, Benny, Agnetha & Anni-Frid"; and "Abba" is a word of its own. It doesn't matter that the group likes to write its name in all caps; this isn't a fansite. The BBC and New York Times, to name two, write it "Abba." ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consider that a couple of editors who deal with style issues on a regular basis (that would include me, the guy who happens to have requested the move from KISS (band) to Kiss (band) a few months back) already dismissed the notion of the untrue acronym and just let the matter go. The band's official website deems the name an acronym for those given names and there is certainly no shortage of less ambiguous and more obtrusive formatting issues on Wikipedia that need fixing. - Cyrus XIII 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the primary problem with the current typeset is the lack of references for its nature as an initialism. These should not be too hard to obtain though and when in place, I'd have no objections with "ABBA", per standard English text formatting and subsequently WP:MOS-CL/WP:MOS-TM. - Cyrus XIII 10:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should get ABBA to deal with this. Either way, there really is no problem, as Abba (band) and ABBA (band) lead to the same place, why swap? - PGSONIC 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If ABBA is Abba then surely BBC is Bbc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.154.204 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

References to Russian pop-group

Under Formative Years, I noticed that "The Hep Stars" and the "Hootenany Singers" were classified as Russian but when I cliked on the link, they were Swedish groups. I'm not sure if it's true that Agnetha had a #1 record in Russia as well. If someone could double-check or correct these please as I don't know how to edit. Thanks. 220.238.244.196 06:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Music samples

The editor who tagged the article for an overuse of copyrighted material certainly has a point, but I believe reducing the number of audio samples to something like four or five would already do the trick. An editor more familiar with ABBA's discography should perform that reduction though, as certain samples are probably better suited to illustrate the group's music than others. - Cyrus XIII 14:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Girls" is probably not the best term here

The article frequently refers to the two female members of the group as "girls". IMHO the article would be improved if all or very nearly all of these references were replaced with a better term. -- 201.19.20.38 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree I've made this change. futurebird 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The English name is 'Abba'

As seen on VH1 only last night, for example, and throughout history, e.g. in the heyday of the NME. The capitals jar throughout, ABBA ABBA ABBA, that just isn't the English name of the group. Alas when I (innocently) changed it about nine months ago it was immediately changed back by indignant Swedes. The discussion above petered out, but anglophone Wikipedia requires established English usage... Rothorpe 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper names are not translatable. -- Stormwatch 01:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What record was broken?

"In Adelaide, the group performed one concert at West Lakes Football Stadium before a record- breaking 21,000 people with another 10,000 listening outside."

Which record was broken? Attendance for the stadium? For an ABBA concert? For an Australian concert? Evil Monkey - Hello 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

ABBA Undeleted=>Published

What proof is there that "Just A Notion", "Another Morning Without You" and "Just Like That" will be released in the Deluxe Editions? Jason was here :-O! 16:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Image Down (subtitled Abba)

That ain't the Abba I know. 86.135.166.143 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Photograph in Influence section of Abba article.

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but surely the photograph referred to above is not Abba, but probably one of their tribute bands.There's no "tilde" on my keyboard, but my name is Bill Peter (Sun 27th January, 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.88.103 (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Proofread and cleanup

Hello. I've not been involved with the article, but I am a raging superfan. I'd like to take a crack at cleaning it up a bit, (WP:BOLD, and all), so I just want the main article watchers to know before you think I'm taking it apart. I think the article can easily reach GA with a cleanup, and with more diverse sources get FA. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that was the first of probably many copy edits the article will require. I removed the trivia section, as well as the section about influence. Much of the information in the article was redundant. I do feel that the article needs a very, very good section on influence of music as a whole instead of an unsourced list of musicians who claim to like ABBA. I intend to work on the article to improve that section, and I kept the edits I made off of my userpage, here, so please don't be upset that that information is lost forever. Some of it is, in fact, quite useful. It does need to be cited, though.

I removed the most POV statements. Is there an editor to take responsibility for citing the pages in the Carl Magnus Palm book? There are two in the bibliography, but the references don't distinguish from which book the items are cited. I'm also working to find more citations, but since the band was popular in Europe and Australia, there are some sources I'll have difficulty finding and reading. It's a massive article, as it should be. I cut about 17k out of it, but I'll be adding more, hopefully better information in the near future. --Moni3 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the opening needs cleaning up. It takes ages to mention that Abba are one of the biggest groups in history, but decides to first mention an award I'd never heard of - which on checking turned out to be something which is only famous in Holland! The photo is pretty poor as well - surely it needs one of the four members (preferably at the height of their fame - not at the start)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ola Brunkert omission

Is Ola Brunkert not mentioned in this article because he was a session performer, and not a part of the publicly perceived group? Should session musicians be included at all? --Heavy (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There probably should be something on their longest-term side players, including Brunkert. He has been added to the list of "former members" recently by a couple of people who must have seen the reports of his death and thought he was a core member mistakenly omitted from the list, but of course that is not true. Michael Patrick (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Michael Patrick keeps removing Ola Brunkert from the 'former members' section. From everything I've read, he played on all the group's albums and toured with them during the height of their career. Can you please explain what you know about this that we do not know (i.e., justify why you are deleting him)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodicus999 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reposting what I put on your talk page...) Sorry to cut your contribution, but the act was always billed as the two men and the two women, and their first initials make up the group's name, which contains four letters and no O. The news of Mr. Brunkert's death got more publicity than I expected, but the reports generally treated him as a close associate. As I mentioned here, the ABBA article should have more on the people who were regulars on the records and other "related persons." Among them should be Brunkert, who was generally on the recording and touring team but not a member of the "act." (Here is some more background.) Michael Patrick (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deaths

Should it be noted that drummer Ola Brunkert passed away? Leamarie411x2 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Museum

Abba will have a museum dedicated to them in Stockholm next year. This should be mentioned perhaps? Check www.abbamuseum.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.159.133 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

How are A*Teens associated with ABBA, and why do they have to appear in the list of 'associated acts'? Just because they covered a couple of ABBA songs, and not even very well at that? If we were to list every group and artist who has done a cover of an ABBA song, we'd be here for a very very long time. Katie1971 ( Let's talk!! ) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brotherhood Of Man

Should any mention of Brotherhood Of Man be made? They were seen as rivals to Abba throughout their most successful period - particularly in the UK and constantly being to compared to them? To say nothing of the Fernando/ Angelo debacle.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information about 4th July 2008 meeting

The article currently says "All four of the former members of ABBA were present at the Stockholm premiere of this film, which took place at the Benny Andersson-owned Rival theatre at Mariatorget, Stockholm on 4th of July 2008. This was the first occasion for 22 years that all of the four ex-members of ABBA have been seen together.[7]".

As far as I know this is incorrect, as all 4 were present at the stage premiere: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4263745.stm

92.20.205.99 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ABBA tours

There should be pages on the ABBA tours of 1975, 1977, 1979 and 1980. I have seen other artist having this done for their tours. I'm willing to make them