Talk:Relax (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I deleted some of the legacy portions claiming Frankie.. being an irresistible soundtrack and some stuff like that which sounded like fanboy sayings, and worst of all, very original research-like, stuff that could come back, WITH citations 201.252.52.235 20:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article contained so many inaccuracies as of 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC), that it was like reading about a different record and producer.

Rather than make changes right away, I decided it was better to initiate a discussion, noting that I would be happy to make the necessary factual changes and cut all the ridiculously inaccurate and POV stuff if no one else objected.

No one objected within a week and so, I made the changes. I trust they meet with general approval. Please comment here if you object before making alterations - I would be interested to debate any issues. DaveG12345 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What's so controversial about this song? It's not really addressed in the article. Flannel 21:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions in passing that it was a controversial 80s record - of which there is no doubt. However, it wasn't *just* a controversial record, and there's already a pretty full treatment of most aspects of the "Relax" controversy in the (linked) group article, also attested in the (linked) BBC reference. So, on balance, I'm not personally convinced that the full story needs repeating yet again here, but relevant details can certainly be added if needs be, provided (IMO) they are placed in some sort of context alongside the rest of the article, and provided they don't just end up redundantly reiterating material that already exists in the main group article.--DaveG12345 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not helpful. The article states it was controversial. WHY??? What are the lyrics, and / or what do they imply or say that is controversial? What were aspects of the controversy? What does FGTH say about the controversy? Otherwise, the article is useless. I remember liking the song, but didn't know there was a controversy, and this article helps me out not one bit.

Hey, I gave you an opinion, I ain't here to *be helpful*. Try clicking the link to the band's name (you got a problem with clicking links on this here internet thing or what?), and hey, maybe you'll learn something... And you will apparently have found the contents of the band article for the first time by clicking a link in this article - so not such a "useless" article after all, eh? --DaveG12345 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK - I added some "Controversy"... :-) --DaveG12345 01:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some non-NPOV, i.e "quality product" (matter of opinion). Also Mike Read did not ban the record. He didn't like it, but he did not have the power to take a network wide BBC ban. 152.163.100.6 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good changes, but I disagree quite strongly with one of them: if "quality product" is an unacceptable description in the context (this was originally a rising Top Ten hit without any particular hyperbole and a slow-burner for months, which was the point being made), then why does "imaginative marketing" not get trimmed for the same "matter of opinion" reasons? After all, some people may (and certainly did) think the marketing was scurrilous lowest common denominator pandering.

My original point with that sentence was to try to suggest at least two contributing factors to the record's success - the record itself (and the way the group presented it), plus ZTT's input. This is closer to the truth, and a more balanced viewpoint, than the one that now remains in that sentence, which seems to repeat the tired old opinion that marketing and hype did it all. Hope you see my point. Saying it was a good record isn't POV heresy in the context of that sentence - it merely insists instead that its success wasn't ALL hype. Because it really wasn't.

And BTW, the linked BBC article states "DJ Mike Read suddenly banned the record from his mid-morning show". Ban? Refused to play? What's the difference? Sure, he didn't impart a BBC-wide ban all by himself. But where in the article did it ever say that he did? DaveG12345 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section seems a little biased inthe group's favour. Doesn't seem overly impartial to me, the way it praises its music.

[edit] Song Video

Just thought I'd mention that the original video (on which their is very little information by the way) is available here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yPLrXFw76Qg

If it goes into the article or not, I don't know, but I think we've move past the stage of taboo'ing anything gay and this video can be appreciated for the pop legacy that it brought about.