Talk:Dr. Feelgood (band)

Pub Rock?

The expression "Pub Rock" in the opening sentence greatly belittles the band. Dr Feelgood are a R&B band! In fact if you talk to the Rolling Stones or Pete Townsend you'll often hear opinions from them that claim the early Dr Feelgood were THE premier R&B band in Britain. The Wilko/Brilleaux era Feelgood were an R&B legend and that is not just my POV. So-called "Pub Rock" as a reaction against Prog Rock doesn't make any logical sense in this instance! "Pub Rock" is not an expression in use at the time whilst R&B quite demostrably is! Dr Feelgood were formed in 1971 and that's years before anyone coined the expession "Prog". Prog fans might claim it originated in the pyschedelic 1960s but most students of popular music will associate Prog with 1970s bands like Yes, Emerson Lake and Palmer etc. The "worst" excesses of Prog were in the MID 1970s and the reactionary music which challenged it was Punk not R&B. You could easily argue Dr Feelgood were proto-punk but what you cannot do is ascribe to them anti Prog status when they had already developed their powerful R&B style long before the Punk led backlash against Prog. Johhny Rotten is famous for his criticism of the turgid Public School old boy pro-establishment nature of Prog which he oft sites as the catalyst for his raw revolutionary Punk. Therefore I challenge the use of the expression "Pub Rock" in the opening sentence and submitt that this should be changed to "R&B" which is not only the contemporary expession but one which reflects the true nature of Dr Feelgood. This article needs a damn good rewrite. Best Wishes to Wilko. In good faith. AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.38.202 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer just one part of your comments, Allmusic describes them as pub rock here - [1]. Also, please read Wikipedia:Verifability. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Allmusic also claims Milk & Alcohol was on the Be Seeing You lp & that Brilleaux was released in 1976! Gwladys24 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree that "pub rock" meant something very different in the 1970s than it does now. I've always thought of this band as an R&B band that happened to emerge from the pubs and clubs of Essex. However, over at Pub rock (United Kingdom): Bands looked menacing and threatening, "like villains on The Sweeney". still does rather ring true? Surely, the only real official source now must be "Down By The Jetty – The Dr Feelgood Story" by Tony Moon (with Foreword by Chris Fenwick)!! What does that say about pub rock, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. Feelgood is an Rhythm and Blues/R&B band, that term goes back to the early to mid 1960s London scene bands (The Who: "Maximum R&B" phrase, My Generation album; The Yardbirds with Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck, Small Faces, early Rolling Stones; The Animals; Graham Bond, John Mayall and some more), who were covering, and were massively influenced by US-American black music/blues/R&B: Bo Diddley, James Brown, Jimmy Reed and many more. US Americans (at the US-dominated wikipedia, and also also those at Allmusic, who currently call them a Rock and Roll band, with R&B influences) seem to be very uneasy with this term (!?), the My Generation album is currenty labelled HARD ROCK (did not exist in 1965). Pub rock is also correct, though the wiki article is very brief- I wonder how you can count the number of releases sold by a "genre" (where are the Ian Dury hit singles) ? the "simplicistic" and "raw" pub rock is certainly a reaction to the "musically refined", "introspective", "meaningful", progressive rock, but in the early 1970s there was worse music to oppose to, fabricated pop music, like glam or *stadium rock* of Status Quo (E-Kartoffel (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC))

Yes, but Quo could very easily play in a pub, couldn't they? I think they did? Never seen them as a bona-fide stadium band. What's your definition of "pub rock"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered in [2] duplicated at least in part material from [3]. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, so which of my past eight edits, that you've just trashed, had the copyright problem? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you follow the link above? Copyrighted content was introduced into the article in October of 2008. Your past eight edits are not involved, but in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations the last verifiably clean version of the article has been restored. I am sorry for the need to revert. You would be very welcome to help evaluate and revise the content that was removed for copyright concerns. There have been a team of editors involved in doing so, and I would imagine that they will have the article back in good shape very soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate that subsequent revisions are discounted in this policy? Good luck team. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From the note above, "Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work." You are welcome to restore any content removed added by other contributors, including yourself, if it is not building on to problematic material but is distinct. There are literally thousands of articles waiting copyright review right now at WP:CCI, in addition to the dozens that come up daily at WP:CP and WP:SCV; while it would be fabulous if we had the manpower to carefully select out content, we don't. We rely on the assistance of the community and trust that those interested in individual articles will help out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your approach seems a perfectly fair one and you have gone to great pains to explain it clearly, so thank you. I was just a bit surprised as it's the first time I have experienced it. Thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I'd be equally dismayed in your situation. :) I appreciate your talking it through. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnson's departure

The BBC have published an interview with Wilko Johnson, giving his version of events surrounding his departure from the band: might be worth incoporating into the article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Full stop, doctor?

Should this article be entitled Dr. Feelgood or Dr Feelgood? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The covers of Down by the Jetty, Malpractice, Stupidity and Sneakin' Suspicion all have it, Be Seeing You has it on the front but not on the back, Twenty Five Years of Dr. Feelgood doesn't (even though the article title does). But their latest, Taking No Prisoners, certainly does have it. Seems they're not that bothered? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's pretty conclusively inconclusive. Certainly not worth a whole raft of editing changes, when someone else will probably come along next week, with more contrasting 'evidence'.

Very vaguely knowing the band, I would say they really do not give a ....

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens, Derek. I expect this one to go to RfC, ANI and ArbCom if needs be!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC) But yes, when I saw them earlier this year they didn't seem overly obsessed with corporate image branding!!

Note: "Dr Feelgood & The Interns" was a different band and certainly used a full stop: [4]. Similarly, the Piano Red song seems to have had one: [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The singles are equally mixed-up - there is no pattern - e.g early releases with, and later releases without - they are all mixed up. As Derek has pointed out some releases have both options - to which I would add - Singles - The UA Years which has a full stop on the spine but not the front cover.
Suggest we stick with the article title - or someone will want to move the article as well, and we'll start another candidate for WP:Lamest edit wars. - Arjayay (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh!! what a litany of shame and horror that place is! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

See also Mr. Big (band) and Mr Big (UK band). Or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't make sense

I don't understand the first paragraph. "The band's name derives from a slang term for heroin or for a doctor who is willing to overprescribe drugs.[1] It is also a reference to a 1962 record by the American blues pianist and singer Willie Perryman (also known as "Piano Red") called "Dr. Feel-Good", which Perryman recorded under the name of Dr. Feelgood & The Interns."

Piano Red's song is about sex NOT heroin (and incidentally so is Aretha Franklin's "Dr. Feelgood") so the two sentences are at odds with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StonePeter (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The band may well have taken their name from Perryman's song and/or his sobriquet, and this should be mentioned in the article - but most certainly not in the opening lead paragraph, which is supposed to summarise the whole article. The reference to drugs is of no relevance whatsoever to this article, so far as I can see. I'll take a look at rewording it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• Dr. Feelgood → Dr. Feelgood (band)
• Dr. Feelgood (disambiguation) → Dr. Feelgood

– "Dr. Feelgood" is a well-known slang term for heroin or a doctor who is willing to over prescribe drugs. In addition it is the best-selling album and song by Mötley Crüe. Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about this. I don't see that an album and song of the same name have any bearing on re-naming an entire band. And I suspect that the use of the name for the band is more widespread than it's use in the slang terms. Personally, I'd associate both of those slang terms with the 1950s or 1960s. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. No primary topic here, given that Mötley Crüe's works come to mind (for me) prior to the term which the song seems to be based. In fact, I, at the least, believe that the currently-established primary topic is incorrect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To what objective standard of notability do we turn? My problem is that I've heard of Motley Crue (without any umlauts) but neither their album nor song. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: My standard is my own: "If I think this way, than most likely someone else does as well." But, in your case, I would ask you this: When you hear the term "Dr. Feelgood", do you immediately think of the band? If not, you probably support the proposed move. (In my case, I've never heard of the band, which is the current primary topic; however, the article seems quite detailed, so I'm sure that others hold the band in high regard, thus the reason I'm not trying to establish a new primary topic, but rather the lack thereof.) Also, another possible way to establish a primary topic (or lack thereof) could be to compare pageview statistics; in fact, I after comparing a few, I would state that there is no primary topic since the pageviews for the band vs. the Mötley Crüe album are about the same. Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that I invariably think of nothing else, primarily because the only times I ever "hear" it, it's being used about them. But then I'm a very firm gig-going fan. Unsurprisingly, the edits I've made to their article have only refined this bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: Understandable, given that after I posted this response, I saw your history of edits to the band article. This is probably one of those cases of "One term is popular in one place (the UK), and the other term is popular in some other place (the US)." For comparison, this line of thinking seemingly resulted in the current state of "Bill O'Reilly", the result of a dispute of different countries' primary topic view. In cases such as these, it's probably best to redirect the ambiguous term to the disambiguation page for the entire range of the English-speaking audience. (Also, I just found an essay that may shine some light on this: WP:WORLDVIEW.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What a relief there's no notable Brit called Bill O'Reilly! I think you have a fair point. I suspect many "primary topics" are based on the strength of notability of a person, or name, in either UK or US. My view (possibly mistaken) is that a band takes precedence over a single album or single song. I guess this it not how PRIMARYTOPIC is meant to work. And I'm sure there are many examples that turn such an assumption on its head. But it just works for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, though somewhat reluctantly. To most UK music fans of a certain age, the band is clearly the primary topic. But, the term "Dr Feelgood" long pre-dates the existence of the band, and clearly has a range of uses. Motley Crue are, I believe, quite popular as well. So, given the range of ages and interests of readers, and the need to take a global perspective that is not UK-centred, I can see that the proposal makes sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I imagining this, or was the article not previously moved from 'Dr Feelgood (band)' to the present title some time ago ? Also the inclusion, or otherwise, of the full stop after 'Dr', is another matter that has been discussed previously. I am easy either way on the proposed move, but perhaps these issues are worth investigating further, before final action is taken. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

p.s. what do we do with "Doctor Feelgood"? e.g. [6]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• If this move is successful, we would probably retarget Doctor Feelgood to the disambiguation page nominated in this discussion. (As of this moment, Doctor Feelgood is a redirect to Dr. Feelgood, the band's article.) However, in regards to your question, the corresponding Wiktionary entry would need to be created, then {{Wiktionary|Doctor Feelgood}} could be added to the top of the disambiguation page to link to that entry. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Motley Crue appears to have sold more records than Dr. Feelgood.Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So that makes any one of their songs or albums more notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The respective approx. populations are 318 million (US) and 63 million (UK) - so no real surprise in the sales figure differentials. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dr. Feelgood (band). 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/20100707075424/http://www.wilkojohnson.org:80/ to http://www.wilkojohnson.org

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 14:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Usual Wikipedia problems

To be perfectly honest, we do not want a lead image from 2009, nor a lead (prominent) "Members" list that is completely irrelevant to the important period of the band's career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.5.21 (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Princess Di and John Mortimer

According to the documentary ‘Oil City Confidential’, Princess Diana and John Mortimer were unlikely fans of this band Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)