Talk:Belle and Sebastian

Comparision confirmation

I'm hearing from musical historian that B&S are reminisent of Fairport Convention, is this true? --ConradKilroy 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of their folkier stuff could possibly be compared to FC. I dunno though; FC often had pretty intricate arrangements, and sounded a lot like traditional English folk music, which is a sound that B&S haven't explored very much. I'd say the comparison is a little dubious. For sure, though, nobody in the band has the pipes of Richard Thompson. ;) wilhelm 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And Vs. &

Editing in Simple Minds to the list of Scottish bands

Hey, Tokerboy: Tigermilk, If You're Feeling Sinister, Lazy Line Painter Jane, Dog on Wheels, and Legal Man all say and. Danny P.S. Storytelling too.

If it's official, go ahead and move it back, though I wouldn't trust album covers alone necessarily. I capriciously move bands to the ampersand in order to have a standard and because most bands don't have an official method of writing it -- if this is an exception, I have no problems with it being at Belle and Sebastian. Tokerboy

It's not official, other albums do use the ampersand. I just wonder what people would be more likely to look up. Danny

I dunno--that's why I always make a redirect. Really it doesn't matter as long as one leads to another, it's just nice to have a community standard to minimize the use of redirects as much as possible. The exact methods of writing groups like Guns n Roses, Bone-Thugz-N-Harmony, etc, etc are many and varied, and have a tendency to spawn multiple, competing articles unless it is nipped in the bud with the judicious and wise use of redirect pages. Tokerboy

• Tigermilk - And
• If You're Feeling Sinister - And
• Dog On Wheels - &
• Lazy Line Painter Jane - And
• The Boy With The Arab Strap - &
• Modern Rock Song - And
• Fold Your Hands Child - &
• Legan Man - And
• Jonathan David - &
• I'm Waking Up To Us - &
• Storytelling - And
• Fans Only DVD - &
• Step Into My Office - And
• Dear Catastrophe Waitress - &
• I'm A Cuckoo - And
• Books - And
• Push Barman - And
• If You're Feeling Sinsiter (live) - &
• The Life Persuit - And

That's 11 'And's and 8 '&'s, obviously not enough to make a decision either way so I think it would be best to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and move it back to Belle & Sebastian.

"Unless you know otherwise, the word and in band names is always an ampersand (&), as in Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Jan & Dean, Richard Hell & the Voidoids"

From the official website: A. Whichever looks better in any situation is right. For my iPod I went for ampersands all the way, cos I like them. Sarah - 07/10/05 http://www.belleandsebastian.com/qasearchk.php?searchterm=ampersand

So the band are not fussed whichever is used, therefore the Wiki standards should be used. Is that correct? --SaltyWater 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Just as their website is inconsistent, Newsbank (UK and world newspaper archive) produces 102 pages of results for "Belle and Sebastian", 63 pages for "Belle & Sebastian", so clearly both are acceptable. Go, then, with the Wikipedia guideline: & Tearlach 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline (which itself differs from reality; see Jan nad Dean; image on Tom Petty) says unles syou know differnt. In this case, we do. Andy Mabbett 09:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no we don't - that was just proved. B&S allow either, and the WP standard is &. Folkor 19:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are you guys getting the idea that the Wikipedia guideline is to use the ampersand? There's nothing written about the ampersand on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). —Lowellian (reply) 13:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Singles or EPs?

Are we drawing a distinction between singles and eps, and if so, what exactly is the distinction? Is it a single if its title matches the title of one of the songs? Or is it based on track count (<=3; >=4)? kevinb9n

I've edited so that records where the record title matches the title of the first track are listed as singles, and other records which were eligible to appear in the singles chart are listed as EPs. Initially (ie, up to and including This Is Just A Modern Rock Song), all the band's singles and EPs had four tracks; they changed to three when the UK singles chart stopped including records with more than three different tracks. SleepyCaitlin

There's an inconsistency, though. If you go to the wikipedia entries for what are called their singles in this article, (Jonathan David, Legal Man, etc.) they are listed as being EPs there.

I'd say Legal Man and all afterwards are singles (except Books). --SaltyWater 19:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the Source?

The article states that B&S were voted best band in Scotland, but fails to mention what organization conducted the poll.

It's from a poll conducted by The List, a Scottish music magazine - I've gadded that in now. Lawful Hippo 18:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Groovy

External links

I suppose I could just remove the links again with the edit summary "removed links". Instead I'll put them here and ask why we should ignore the Wikipedia:External links guideline? - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• B&S on Jeepster
• Sinister – Mailing list, with lyrics and chords
• B&S on the Bowlie forum
• David White's B&S fansite

None of those links fall under any of the 8 "what should not be linked to" points. All contain information not already in this article. SaltyWater 14:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeepster is a murky one, but we generally only have one "official" link per page. Sinister and bowlie are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Sinister is already linked from the B&S hompage and bowlie can be found on their qa board, and finally I have not been able to get David White's page to load.

Looking at Sinister's list of sites, what criteria have been used to choose which ones are included and why have the others been excluded? How has NPOV been preserved? "What should not be linked to" point one says, "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." Do these provide that?

I'm sure these are great sites. But by putting one in and not the others, we're doing them a disservice. Additionally, our goal here is not to make sure that fans have access to up-to-date information on tours and press releases. It is to provide stable, encyclopedic content. All these links should go.

brenneman^(t)(c) 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You're really boring. SaltyWater 14:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue that, but it usually takes people longer than that to figure it out. I'll just assume that you don't have an actual arguments as to why these links should stay. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are these links hurting? It's not like they are untruthful or distracting from the article. I think the label's page for a band is kind of important, and the mailing list is awesome; I love the availability of the chords there. The forum on Bowlie I would find not as important, but still harmless and at least helpful. Obviously, a broken link should be removed. Folkor 23:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have at some point been involved in three of those sites in some capacity, things I would like to point out: Jeepster own the exclusive and worldwide contract for all of the early albums, and only sub-licensed to Matador, Virgin France, etc... their site was a significant resource back in 1998 and was a prime reason the fixing of the Brit award worked. I no longer work with or are connected with them in any way, but do not doubt their historical importance to the band and what was achieved there. They should be linked to still. I agree with your arguments regards the top level links for Sinister and Bowlie, yet both offer unique and core content that does match your criteria for link inclusion, I have taken the liberty of inserting a link to Bowlie that goes to the Press Cuttings archive, which has got just about every published article that we've found in the last few years. Let me know if you find this doesn't match your criteria. Similarly, for Sinister I've linked directly to the chords, again good enough to be included according to your criteria. User:buro9

Matador cite + trivia added

I was surprised to see that the entry had no reference to Belle & Sebastian's U.S. involvement with Matador Records, so I added the info as a parenthetical aside next to the info about the move from Jeepster to Rough Trade. I also added info about Storytelling and Belle & Sebastian references on U.S. TV shows as evidence of the band's growing influence and fame on American shores. Andrewjnyc 19:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Twee pop vs. Indie vs. Pop

Why do people keep reverting the band's lead-in to say just pop or indie instead of twee pop? Twee pop is the most accurate representation I can think of for the band, and it's been that way in this article for as long as I can remember. If someone could present some actual arguments as to why the band isn't twee, that'd be great. Otherwise I'll just keep reverting people's edits. Folkor 09:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll accept 194.80.21.10's compromise. Folkor 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the word "twee" has acquired semipejorative connotations as an adjective meaning something that is overly and /or self-consciously cute. For that reason, the label could be misread as dismissive toward the band. In addition, a lot of B&S material has a "classical" pop sound to it that makes it seem inappropriate to shoehorn them into a subgenre like "twee". The Life Pursuit, for example, feels to me more like Arthur/Village Green Preservation Society-era Kinks than it does anything I'd call twee.--Andrewjnyc 22:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't and can't categorise music, but my 2cents... B&S have never striked me as twee. Soft, they may frequently be, but they've always had balls. That's not very twee. SaltyWater 01:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I was making the mistake of mostly making my judgment solely on "If You're Feeling Sinister", which is kind of twee. However, now with a copy of the new album on my hands, and a deeper understanding of the rest of the band's catalogue, I think you guys are right. I was looking for some discussion, which I have received. Thanks. Folkor 07:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When a band has a catalogue as extensive as Belle & Sebastian's, what kind of utter bozo claims to be an authority on "the most accurate" description of their music based on a judgment "solely" formed from listening to one album? I don't so much object to the word "twee" as to the false impression that someone is making knowledgeable pronouncements when really that person has no clue. Matt, 8 March, 2006

• Woah, dude, I said sorry. I made a mistake and I apologized. As I said, I wanted some discussion on the topic, since different people (usually IPs, not registered users) would change twee to indie, and never give a reason. I then wanted other people's opinions, which I got, and then I backed down. I mean, IYFS is probably the band's best known album, and some of their other work is a bit twee too. However, I agree that the band isn't twee on the whole - thus my retraction. Again, I'm sorry; if you have a problem with me reverting edits that have no explanation from IPs that go against my previous knowledge, please just say I need to do more research instead of insulting me. Folkor 06:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it to mention the application of 'twee pop' only to their early music. I think you'd find it very hard to call more than a handful of tracks from DCW or TLP that sound even a little twee. TLP, in particular, is not twee at all. I think this is a fair enough change but feel free to discuss / change back. 121.44.98.174 15:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Belle and Sebastian should be considered as twee, like you said. I think Indie rock is a lot more appropriate label for them. 71.105.192.51 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Geek rock"

Someone keeps adding something saying B&S are "geek rock". What a load of bullshit. I think its fair to remove any future edits as such. Notice that B&S don't actually fit into the description on the geek rock article. SaltyWater 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed that. I wonder what a "sexually muddled" sound is like? --ajn (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Belle & Sebastian releases up for CfD

Intention is to merge these to Category:Belle & Sebastian albums.

People should make their thoughts known on the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page (search the page for it, it isn't directly linked). --DaveG12345 01:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Twee/Indie > Chamber

I went ahead and changed all the tags on the B&S albums/comps to "Chamber" from "Twee" or "Indie" because there seemed to be a consensus. Mchmike 04:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck does "chamber" mean? SaltyWater 14:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chamber from Chamber pop. Pop music that contains elements of baroque/chamber musicianship--small arrangements for strings, etc. MKV 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you find some sources please. SaltyWater 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree we need some sources, I've never heard of this genre until today. Catchpole 20:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick search: [1] [2] [3]

etc. MKV 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up History

I think the History section is getting a little unwieldy and should be split into subsections. It would go pretty comfortably into

• Formation and Rise to Notoriety (formation through 3...6...9)
• Continued Success on Jeepster (Arab Strap through Campbell's departure)
• Rough Trade Period (Dear Catastrophe Waitress till now).

Yes? No? Other organization schemes?

3 days later: I'll take that silence as agreement, so I'm just going to go ahead and divide it up.

Dan Slimmon 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cas(s)aco Marron

I'm the one who added the "Cas(s)aco Marron" single info... and yet I'm confused. The cover of the single spells it with one S, and while I don't have the "LateNightTales" CD case handy, I believe that does too. And yet I'm pretty sure the original song is rightly spelled with two S's; B&S/Azuli just messed up. Which spelling should we be using? Charolastra charolo 05:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

LateNightTales spells it with two S's.71.171.201.127 06:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very odd intro to the article

Justification for whether they should be characterised x or y. whats that got to do with their 12 year career and influence ? The intro article should sum up what they've done, impact, how they've changed,  ? By the way. not that it matters but audio galaxy classify them as Folk Rock, Indie Rock, Chamber Pop, Indie Pop, Modern Rock...not just chamber pop. Jem 13:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly --sparkl_!sm ^talk 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes most of the wikipedia articles suffer from this tremendous shortcoming, where people try to classify music as if its food or something... This article is especially ridiculous in that respect. For instance, if someone wants to expand on the similarites between Bob Dylan, Love, and B&S, I'd love to hear it. Trefalcon (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BelleAndSebastianLazyLinePainterJaneBoxset.jpg

Image:BelleAndSebastianLazyLinePainterJaneBoxset.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dearcatastrophecover.jpg

Image:Dearcatastrophecover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FoldYourHandsChildCover.jpg

Image:FoldYourHandsChildCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Member list

Why have it in the intro and the box?? 147.136.249.101 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use - Discography

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -- Merope 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The image on the cover illustrates the text in the article about the artist and album, and does not serve a merely decorative purpose. Therefore, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 does not apply, as illustrating the album cover is significant. I don't think #2a applies either, as the album covers are only used once on this article. In my opinion, the album covers should remain up, but then again, I’m no expert on fair use. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What Happened?

This article used to be really good--and quite thorough. What happened to it?71.171.201.127 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can access the article's history here. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

So, after taking a long hard look at the article i noticed the obvious; it's mostly written by fans and it sometimes fails to have a neutral point of view.

• It charted at a modest #59 in the UK singles chart. Modest according to who? Other people could say that they were overrated.
• While often cited by critics as the band's best album, Arab Strap has nonetheless had its detractors Finally something negative!, but then it stops there. Detractors? like what? care to expand?
• The Boy With the Arab Strap and critical acclaim (1998-2002) The only ref to a positive review i see in that section is from a unknown (at least to me) Australian journalist. That's not good enough to say that they were "critically acclaimed".
• As the band's popularity and recognition was growing worldwide, their music... Wow!, really? did their sales worldwide augmented? Did lots of artists recongized B&S's influence on their work?

I know that to both of these comments you'll want to argue "but they won a BRIT award!". That award doesn't mean they are popular worldwide, and as it is given by the public it doesn't give the band "critical acclaim".

• has been hailed as one of the great songs of all time. I'm afraid this needs more than one reference.
• in Recent years it says that they had a string of mediocre releases and that two albums were poorly-received . But according to the previous section, during the release of those albums they were critically acclaimed and had won recognition worldwide, so which one is it?.
• played a historic show That's a bit too much, even if the harp magazine journalist said so.
• In the lead section it's mentioned that they have been compared to The Smiths and Bob Dylan, but this is not mentioned again. I thought a lot of bands (Camera Obscura (band), Kings of Convenience, The Magic Numbers, Snowpatrol) considered B&S as influencial to their work, maybe this could be added to the article's main body?

Overall
The sections before recent years need to be cleaned up, it has way too many opinions. There has to be a balance between the positive reviews and the band's failure in reaching the mainstream. The article will be on hold for seven days.-Yamanbaiia 16:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I'll get to work on implementing your recommendations. I do admit that I am a B&S fan; however, while I've done a lot of work to the article trying to get it to GA, I didn't write the original article, so that's where a lot of the weasel-y words and phrases come from. One problem with the article is that Fold Your Hands Child, You Walk Like a Peasant and Storytelling are really the only poorly-received albums released by the band. That might sound like a fan talking, but try to find a negative review of Boy With the Arab Strap or their first two albums; it's certainly no easy task. The book that I found (The Overrated Book) also knocks The Beastie Boys, Bauhaus, Beck and the Beatles (!), and that's just on the same page! The guy quite clearly went to his local record store and went through the bands alphabetically, giving them all bad reviews. But I digress. :) (Actually, I just remembered that Pitchfork gave Arab Strap a terrible review, I'll include that.)

As for

in Recent years it says that they had a string of mediocre releases and that two albums were poorly-received . But according to the previous section, during the release of those albums they were critically acclaimed and had won recognition worldwide, so which one is it?.

the "string of mediocre releases" refers to FYHCYWLAP and Storytelling. I thought that that was clear but obviously I was wrong, so I'll try to clean it up. Oh, and as for the BRIT award, I'm an American, so I couldn't care less about that. :) I assume it's like a Grammy and, if so, it means even less as far as I'm concerned.

I've also been trying to come up with a section discussing their legacy and the influence they've had on other bands, per a recommendation on my talk page. Hopefully I'll have something in the next couple of days. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a HUGE fan myself, that's why i know the press loves them. But there should be a comment somewhere about their style and the kind of public they have, because if they are the best of the best how come no one knows them?. If you are fan you know that B&S are not super-popular, most people would even consider them "naptime music" bordering suicidal when listening for the first time.

If those albums were poorly received that would reflect on their sales, but that's probably hard to reference.

If you don't have time to do so much in a week i'll just fail it and then you can take your time fixing it before renominating. Yamanbaiia 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is still not neutral, so i am failing it. If you think i'm mistaken feel free to ask for a reassessment. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like it's from the fan club or the label's marketing department. Playing with the Shins is "historic"? Not to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.202.84 (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...why don't you check the source? That's where the word 'historic' comes from. Furthermore, the fact that the Shins opened is incidental - you're taking it out of context. The source describes B&S playing with the Los Angeles Philharmonic as being historic; the opening band is irrelevant. faithless (^speak) 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Juno Soundtrack

I believe that some reference should be made to their inclusion to the Juno soundtrack, as it adds to their notability per WP:NMG. It was noted in the article until it was recently taken off by User:Faithlessthewonderboy, giving the reason of "...Their songs have been featured in many films, there's no reason to mention them all..." As a big fan of Belle and Sebastian, I can not recall "many films" that they have been featured in, but if I am wrong, please tell me...still, Juno is an immensely popular movie, Oscar nominated might I add, so i do believe that it is more than notable to add to the article...

I would also like to add that the previous version of the article that did have a mention of the Juno soundtrack did not mention both songs that were featured in the soundtrack...more specifically, it mentioned the song "Expectations" but did not mention "Piazza, New York Catcher." Fanofranz (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Belle and Sebastian do not need to prove their notability. Their music has featured in numerous films and tv series - if you look back in the history of this article you will find a list. If you want to include this information, a better place for it would be in the Juno (soundtrack) article or the article on the album the songs features in. Catchpole (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just see it as necessary because it shows their inclusion into more popular American media, where the other films have been an obscure British TV series, High Fedility (although a popular movie, it also references around thirty other bands), or Storytelling, an arguably obscure movie whose only claims to fame is B&S creating the entire soundtrack for, see Storytelling (album), and being amongst a list of 1000 best movies compiled by the New York Times, 1000 is a huge number of movies i might add. It also continues the 2003-Present Section, to the effect that the only previous information about is the (fantastic) Colours Are Brighter album in 2006. This might lead some to believe that the band has been doing nothing since this album; which would be pretense as they have been featured in a "major indie" film. Fanofranz (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a song on a movie soundtrack is not a big deal, especially for a band as big as B&S. They have also appeared in The Devil Wears Prada, One Tree Hill, Shallow Hal, The Ringer, etc. Listing all these does nothing for the article, it's unimportant trivia. faithless (^speak) 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be mentioned. You've only got to look at their last.fm page and see how being on the Juno soundtrack affected their most played songs, also Juno's soundtrack was a much noted aspect of it's acclaim and a more successful film than any other which had previously featured B&S songs. Petepetepetepete (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"It Could Have Been a Brilliant Career"

In the history section of the article, it is mentioned that "It Could Have Been a Brilliant Career" has been hailed as one of the great songs of all time, and a source is referenced. That's wonderful, but it's a red link, so how "great" is this song really? It seems to be giving undue importance to this one source - could we get some perspective on this? --Leviel (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything was a red link at some point. :) When I wrote that, I was just trying to include critical responses to B&S's work. Indeed, I've included every descent reference I've been able to find, positive and negative. The trouble is, B&S being the critical darlings they are, there aren't very many negative reviews out there, which leads to the article seeming a bit overtly-positive. :) faithless (^speak) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, what one guy said in his book about the song does not make it a 'Hailing'. Besides, he wrote about 1001 great songs, not exactly an exclusive list. This phrase is absurd and should be removed. Trefalcon (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First, saying 'listen' like that can be taken the wrong way. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but just keep in mind the tone you use when talking to other editors. Second, someone describing the song as one of the greatest of all time is the definition of 'hailing.' Third, when one considers the millions (billions?) of songs that have been recorded throughout history, a list of 1001 is quite exclusive. faithless (^speak) 01:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of the sentence to mention who specifically said this (Toby Creswell), thereby taking care of any WP:UNDUE concerns. faithless (^speak) 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence may now be factually correct and conform to wikipedia rules because of how it has been worded but that still does not make it relevant. 1001 songs may be quite exclusive in the context of every song ever written but in the context of songs that this one particular journalist has heard often enough to form a firm opinion on it is a huge number. Of the 1000 other songs in the book I can find only one (referenced) example of another wikipedia page making note of this apparent accolade - that is for Mudhoney's Touch Me I'm Sick where it is included in a list of sources where the song as been hailed as one of the best ever. Articles for three other songs use the book as a reference; but only for sourcing other information and they do not even bother mentioning its inclusion in this book as a great song. It Could Have Been a Brilliant Career is a minor blip in a substantial career for this band so I feel that to draw attention to this one song is an irrelevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifhein (talk • contribs) 12:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with above poster and would like to point out the likelihood that every song ever played on the radio has been hailed as 'the best song ever!' by somebody. It is entirely subjective and as such is the sort of thing you don't find in an encyclopedia. The fact that somebody put their opinion into print, doesnt make it worth repeating. faithless, I think you're definiton of a 'hailing' needs to be revised. If the song was praised in every other music magazine upon its release, and specifically mentioned by a bunch of respected reviewers, that would be a hailing. One guy mentioning it in a book about 1001 other songs, published years after the song came out... more like a drizzle, actually. Trefalcon (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikifhein - You make a valid point, though I disagree. It's important to look at the context of the sentence; the section discusses the period of B&S's career wherein they started garnering increased popular and critical acclaim. During this time, a noteworthy music journalist wrote about a piece the band recorded, calling it one of the greatest songs ever. I can't understand how anyone could say that isn't relevant. Trefalcon - your assessment would be absolutely correct if it were just some random guy. If I wrote it (which I wouldn't, I don't particularly care for the song), it wouldn't be noteworthy. Again, what makes it noteworthy is who said it. faithless (^speak) 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry faithless but I just don't think you have a case here. It's inclusion has been questioned by me, Trefalcon and Leviel here and again called into doubt further up the page in the GA review section. You seem to be the only one defending this inclusion of yours and it is my opinion that the case against is strong enough for its removal. Wikifhein (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New Album

A IP user from 76.172.27.37 added to the Albums section of the page "New Album (2010)". I have taken this out. there is no indication in my opinion that a new album will be released in 2010. The Belle & Sebastian email newsletter that i recieved today said "Although the hard work on the next B&S record won’t begin until next year" This gives no indication of when they'll be finished. it only says they intend to start it next year. any other opinions. Should a note to this be added to the bottom of the article. Does not seem to be anything concrete Phil Nolte (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; even if they finish the album next year (which seems likely if that's when they start on it) it may not be released until 2011. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Fold Your Hands Child..." "Not well received?" No citation.

"Fold Your Hands Child, You Walk Like a Peasant" is described in the article as B&S's first top ten album in the UK. it charted at #84 in the US, yet the the article say it "was not well received." Where's the citation for this or any evidence? Not well received by whom? I believe this part of the article is biased opinion, not fact.

Azjimn2son (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but as an obsessed fan I can give you a bit of context. I've read reviews and had conversations about it and the theme that tends to come up is that it's not a very consistent record. It was the product of a more 'democratic' approach to the band (as opposed to Stuart having the majority of control) and consequently it's been criticised for being a bit patchy. So, the "not well received" bit is referring to critical opinion, and it means "compared to the other albums".

It's not that it was a bad album, it just wasn't as cohesive as what came before and after (excluding storytelling, which is sort of its own category). I still think it's a great album, personally. Some of the tracks ("I fought in a war", "Waiting for the moon to rise", "Women's realm") are among my favourite B&S songs. But I don't think it's any violation of NPOV to say that Fold Your Hands wasn't nearly as popular with critics as their other albums, I've certainly heard and read it before. You're right that it needs citation though - I'm sure some kindly soul will be able to find some reviews on the interwebs. 203.217.150.68 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Azjimn2son. To start a counterpoint with "I don't have a source, but as an obsessed fan..." nullifies any unbiased referential merit. I'm aware this is a talk page, and the opinions stated are perfectly fine for conversation sake, but Azjimn2son objects to the matter of how Wikipedia's entry declares how the album performed critically without citing sources. Metacritic finds the album mentioned to score 68[4], which qualifies it as "Generally Favorable Reviews"[5]. Thesoftbulletin82 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Write About Love vs B&S Write About Love

Since the new album name has been revealed, I was just curious as to how people would refer to it on Wikipedia. From Stuart Murdoch's official statement on the Belle & Sebastian website, it seems that the actual name of the album is Belle & Sebastian Write About Love - including the band's name - as opposed to simply Write About Love. Since the references regarding the naming of the album (coming from B&S themselves, in fact) all include the band's name in the title, I have changed instances of Write About Love to Belle & Sebastian Write About Love.

Whenbongoscollide (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To add to this, I've copied and pasted what I have written in the discussion for Belle & Sebastian Write About Love, as it definitely applies here too.

People have been shortening the title down to Write About Love - I just wanted to point out that even though the majority of websites do refer to the album merely as Write About Love, Belle & Sebastian themselves have stated the correct title is in fact Belle & Sebastian Write About Love.

from http://www.belleandsebastian.com/qasearchk.php?searchterm=write+about+love

" From: C Q.Aw man, write about love, that song is something else! What an organ solo, definitely Alan price or Rod Argent worthy. But has the album released been pushed back from the 11th of October to the 25th? Gutted.

A. i think it's 'write about love' the single that comes out on 25th; the LP 'belle and sebastian write about love' is still due on the 11th i'm sure.

Sarah - 06/09/10"

"From: margot Q.so will the album title be properly listed as "Belle and Sebastian Write About Love" or just "Write About Love"? In 2005 when Franz released their second album, they called it "You could have it so much better with Franz Ferdinand" but the magazines and shops called it "You could have it so much better with.." I wonder if the same will happen here!

A. It should be 'Belle and Sebastian Write about Love' - as in 'Val Doonican Rocks but Gently'.

Sarah - 14/08/10"

As a result, can people please refrain from moving the page or editing the article to shorten the title down to Write About Love, as it is incorrect.

Whenbongoscollide (Talk) 13:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Write About Love drop?

I'm hearing it on the fm....wiki on upcoming album lists date as 9-25-10 -Matt B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%26_Sebastian_Write_About_Love

72.179.54.13 (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Band name

Surely the band name comes from the black and white French television serial, well known to British kids of the ages of the band members, as opposed to the, more obscure in the UK at least, original French book or later anime? I would be astonished if the cited sources actually state the source of the band name was the book or the anime rather than the serial. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone should definitely look into it. I seem to remember one of the band members saying they watched it, specifically, which rules out the book. ★KEYS★ ^(talk) 20:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I recall an interview where the band members stated they took the name from the 1960's French TV show. Sadly, I can't remember if I read or heard it. I'm sure if someone looked hard enough, they could find a cite-able reference. I would myself, but I don't think wikipedia is worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.233 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, whilst it says the band was named after "a 1965 children's book by French writer Cécile Aubry later adapted for television", the very page it links to says that the TV show came first. I don't know which is correct though. --afrazkhan (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Associated acts

Some explanation has to be provided in the body of the article for the 8 bands that appear in the "associated acts" section of the infobox. How are these bands associated? Have they performed together? Do they share members? Has a notable critic made a comparison of their sound or of one band's influence on the other? Or, as I suspect, are these simply the opinions of fanboy editors? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Belle & Sebastian → Belle and Sebastian – The band's own website uses the version of the name with "and" rather than the ampersand, and this version is mostly used in the article itself. PatGallacher (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Ampersands should be avoided if at all possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Widely considered the band's masterpiece" vs. "often described by critics as the band's best album"

The article describes If you're feeling sinister as "widely considered the band's masterpiece", while it terms The Boy with the Arab Strap as "often described by critics as the band's best album". This is unclear. I imagine that "widely considered" is stronger than "often described", and "masterpiece" is stronger than "the band's best album", but there's more than a little potential for confusion.Smitse (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Belle and Sebastian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124093353/http://www.belleandsebastian.com:80/newsstory.php?id=503 to http://www.belleandsebastian.com/newsstory.php?id=503

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Limited commercial success"?

The opening paragraph currently contains the statement that the band have had 'limited commercial success' - this is clearly factually incorrect. As can be seen from their discography the band have had 4 top ten albums in the UK, 6 top 20 albums (one of which went top 20 in America). Among these releases are 4 Gold and two Silver discs. They've even had 7 top 40 'hits' in the UK. They have had considerable commercial success would be accurate. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The Beatles of twee

...is the urban dictionary example of 'twee'.

Anyone agree? 78.149.209.149 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Belle and Sebastian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612101724/http://www.salon.com:80/entertainment/movies/review/2000/03/31/high_fidelity/print.html to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/review/2000/03/31/high_fidelity/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110201055935/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/music/review/2000/05/09/looper/index.html to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/music/review/2000/05/09/looper/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522151712/http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_11.06.03/music/qa2.php to http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_11.06.03/music/qa2.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213205947/http://harpmagazine.com:80/reviews/concert_reviews/detail.cfm?article=10382 to http://harpmagazine.com/reviews/concert_reviews/detail.cfm?article=10382

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Belle and Sebastian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbsfm.org.au/Documents.asp?ID=2536&Title=Belle%20and%20Sebastian%202nd%20Melbourne%20show%21%20%20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804123605/http://www.spin.com/articles/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005 to http://www.spin.com/articles/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/review/2000/03/31/high_fidelity/print.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20031221/ai_n12585237
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20031005/ai_n12586361
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://harpmagazine.com/reviews/concert_reviews/detail.cfm?article=10382

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belle and Sebastian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbsfm.org.au/Documents.asp?ID=2536&Title=Belle%20and%20Sebastian%202nd%20Melbourne%20show%21%20%20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210215308/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2002878317_bellesebastian21.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2002878317_bellesebastian21.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belle and Sebastian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615160318/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2010-10-23/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2010-10-23/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)