Talk:Heart (band)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

formed in Canada?

Wow, I thought we had finally come up with a way to settle the issue that Heart was NOT CANADIAN but first had success in Canada, and then someone comes along and says that they originally were "considered to be Canadian." Living in Canada for a few years does not make anyone Canadian! In spite of what the band said on TV one time they NEVER WERE CANADIAN. Or, rather, a better way to understand this is that they liked to think of themselves as Canadian when they thought it was good for their career, and then dumped their love for Canada as soon as they made it in the U.S. In light of that, why is it that a few badly mis-informed people from Vancouver still want to claim them as Canadian? I had to removed the "considered to be Canadian" phrase which are WEASEL WORDS at best and completely undocumented.

Regardless of whether they were "understood to be Canadian" by Vancouverites or Torontonians the fact is that the band misled their fans about their real nationality in order to boost their careers. The radio station director in Montreal who was the first to play their records also acknowledges that she was misled by Shelly Siegel and Mushroom. I think the real reason why they told Americans on an American TV show that they were Canadian is that they got too carried away by the whole charade, or maybe it was just the drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.191.203 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really rather hard to believe that Heart was formed in Canada when, in fact, most of the early members had previously worked together in the Seattle area before moving to Canada. I always thought they were formed in Seattle. Even though they have made off-handed comments about being formed in Canada I never took those comments seriously. The only one I know of for sure who did not work with them early on was Howard Leese, who is originally from southern California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red98113 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should put the whole "Canadian band" issue to rest by re-writing the article to say that Heart is an American band who first found success in Canada. Its more accurate and avoids the long story and confusion of exactly where they were formed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.170.98 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Fisher boys were in Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft and the sisters followed them up. That is the only reason they were hanging out in Canada during the early 70's, it is no secret. Mrhyak (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Heart's alleged Canadian Content status

I have seen early (1975) Canadian copies of Dreamboat Annie LP in which the label shows all 4 parts of the Canadian Content MAPL logo filled in. I will try to get some more pictures to back up this claim, but don't have them right now. This would mean that the recording claims to have:

(M) Music written entirely by a Canadian (A) The Artist of the record is a Canadian (P) The recording was Produced in Canada (L) The Lyrics were written entirely by a Canadian

Since all the members of Heart were in fact American citizens it is very hard to see how Mushroom records could have legitimately claimed that Dreamboat Annie fulfilled all 4 requirements. The only one of the 3 requirements that the band clearly did fulfill is the "P" requirement, since the album was produced and recorded in Vancouver B.C. To claim CanCon status the current rules require that the recording must fulfill at least 2 of the above requirements. (There are a few exceptions to the current rules which don't apply to this Heart recording.) CanCon requirements have been modified somewhat over the years, but as far as I know fulfilling only 1 requirement never allowed a recording to qualify for CanCon status.

So the question is, did Shelly Siegel and Mushroom Records deliberately mis-represent Heart's CanCon status on the record label in order to get their music on the radio? Perhaps this is the real source of all of the confusion over Heart's alleged status as a Canadian group. It also seems that early on the group tried to convince people that they were Canadian, when in fact they really were not and still are not. Was there some sort of conspiracy going on? Need to get to the bottom of this mystery! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.6.178 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bands influenced by Heart?

Quoting the legacy section: Among the groups who have recorded at their Bad Animals studio are R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden and Candlebox (all of whom have cited Heart as a major influence)

Although I don't claim to be an expert on said bands (although I'm a fan of all but candlebox) I don't recall any of these bands stating that they were influenced by heart (although I do remember that Alice In Chains played a tribute to heart, so there's a little evidence for AiC's inclusion), also it shows that there is a citation needed.

I believe that it should be removed, however, I believe it should at the very least be disscussed first.

Also, if anyone can find source(s) to back this statement, then I don't see any reason it shouldn't continue to be there.

ps: I do not dispute the claim that these bands recorded at Bad Animals studio, I don't know, but if it turns out the statement of Heart's influencing these bands is untrue than it's pretty irrelevant.

Alternative Idiot (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Chains has cited them as a major influence as does Chris Cornell (I'm pretty sure he made reference to this in their behind the music episode). I do remember Pearl Jam making reference to them as an influence as well. They did also influence some metal/rock acts in the eighties. 67.181.182.87 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The article already provides a reference for Alice in Chains. viz: http://www.decadesrocklive.com/confidential/ Interview - Alice in Chains, Alice in Chains speaks about Heart’s influence, Decades Rock Confidential.
  • Re: Chris Cornell: Which "they" are you referring to when you say "their" interview? (Presumably Soundgarden?)
  • Have you any details of when/where Pearl Jam made the reference?
  • Any ideas on which "metal/rock acts in the eighties" were influenced? Do you have any supporting references?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Heart promotional photo (1973)

Hi folks, can someone name the people in this photo, in the same way as the 1970 photo. This would show the changing membership of the band in the early years. Thanks Edgepedia (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Been working on that but it is a slow process. For sure far left is Steve, In the middle is Ann and far right is Roger. The photographer tells me "As for the players on drums and keyboards, at the moment your guess is as good as mine. I spent a lot of time and made the most money out of bands that kept changing personnel. It was hard to keep up with who was moving where and now they all look like the same bearded hairy kids. The best that I can do is to try and find the original negs from that shoot and see if I can get a clear print of those two and send them to Roger or Ann for an ID." My feeling is the keyboard player may be John Hannah, who was a local Vancouver musician that played with them circa 1972/73. He is more known for playing with Bryan Adams in the 80's. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sv1. I've been experimenting with how to present that information, and I haven't liked anything that I've come up with yet. What follows is the least bad of the options I thought of. Comments? Suggestions? Improvements? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[[Image:Heart1973 BC.png|thumb|190px|float|right|Heart promotional photo (1973)<br>Top (L-R): Steve Fossen,<br>''(unidentified, possibly John Hannah)'',<br>Anne Wilson,<br>''(unidentified)'',<br>Roger Fisher]]
(In case you were wondering, it's between <nowiki></nowiki> brackets to avoid problems with the "copyright police". Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
After-thought:
Has anyone seen a picture of Mike Fisher? (Has anyone got a "free" one?)
I think I read somewhere that at one time he was a drummer. (However, I've also read other (conflicting) information about him.)
Is there any chance that the drummer might be Mike Fisher? (Probably unlikely - if he wasn't in the 1970 picture, why would he be in the 1973 picture?)
Just a thought. Comments/Opinions/Other thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

disjointed

Wow, this article is seriously disjointed and just down right rambles in places. I don't even know where to start on improving it. Also, I have to take issue with Heart being tagged as a Canadian band, they are Americans who simply lived in Canada at one time, their having lived here, and being once signed to a long defunct, small Canadian label, doesn't make them Canadian. Status4 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say the founding members were Canadian, only that the band formed in Canada. The very first line in the article says "Heart is a rock band whose founding members came from Seattle, Washington, USA...". However due to the fact the core formed in Canada, played the local clubs, had their first release(s) in Canada and, when even the bands members said they were a "from Canada", it is not shocking they are considered a "Canadian band". Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Status4: I suggest you read the archives; I'm fairly confident that the answers to all of your questions (and much, much more) can be found in there. On second thoughts, Soundvisions1's response it a pretty accurate summary of at least 25% of the archives. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased quote?

"The media had a field day."

Extended content

This quote seems biased and probably qualifies as weasel words. NorthernThunder (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify.
How does it "seems biased"? Is it a fact, is it not? How can a fact "seem biased"? Look at the number of references quotes - far in excess of "average coverage".
And how is it "ambiguous and not supported by facts"? There is no ambiguity, and there is a pile of facts to support it.
I either don't understand your comment, or I disagree with it. Looking forward to reading your clarification. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Having a field day" can imply many things. One of them being that journalists purposely went after Palin, which may or may not be true. The truth is, there are many times when journalist overreport on issues, (even ones non political in nature) and the phrase, "the media had a field day" typically is meant to imply a group of journalists collaborating together for polictical motivations; a rather common catch-phrase if someone feels the media is against their own side. Also, wikipedia standards are typically meant to portray facts mentioned in the source itself. Interpreting the source, or group of sources in this case, even if true, violates the wikipedia 'no original content' rule, and should be deleted accordingly. Why don't you find a source from a political commentator instead? --Jtd00123 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.
"Having a field day" can imply many things. ... polictical motivations;
Although I largely agree with what you've said, I can't work out what point you are trying to make.
If your point is: "The phrase Having a field day is ambiguous.", then yes, I guess I must agree with you. As you imply, it doesn't really matter what my intent was - what matters is how it is interpreted.
Otherwise, as I said, I can't work out what your point is.
a rather common catch-phrase if someone feels the media is against their own side.
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean "It's a phrase commonly used by those who feel they are being persecuted"? If so, does that mean you feel the phrase could be interpreted as saying the press persecuted someone? Well, to be blunt, isn't that exactly what the press did do? Therefore, is it not a statement of fact rather than a statement of opinion?
Also, wikipedia standards ... accordingly.
What you say is a 100% accurate reflection of one of WP's policies. However, I feel that what you say is not 100% relevant to this situation. What "original research" is involved in making a factual statement and following it with six references? Independent of what "having a field day" may mean, the presence of half-a-dozen references is supporting evidence that the media did have a field day. I can't see any "original research" in that. Or am I missing something?
Why don't you find a source from a political commentator instead?
A number of reasons, but the main one is: "I don't see the need to." - And anyway, my pov is that it is a simple statement of fact, not a statement of opinion.
So, I think we probably understand each other's points of view well enough, and probably agree with each other's line of reasoning. However, we disagree with each other's conclusions.
So what do we do now? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
How about this approach... what exactly is a "field day"? Limpidgreen345 (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, well! I am completely surprised. According to WP, field day is an Australian expression! I had assumed is was a "universal" expression with north american origins. Maybe that explains why I don't have any problem with it, but the other two editors, both Canadian I believe, are/were uncomfortable with it?
In answer to your question, my interpretation of the modern suburban Australian evolution of the definition of "field day" is: A large gathering of likeminded people with common interests coming together outdoors to socially interact with each other, catch up on the news, swap jokes, have a good time, enjoy the sunshine, and probably eat and drink together. Looking at the WP page, I would say that the modern definition differs only in the excuse for having the get-together in the first place.
So, it would appear that "the problem" is that I'm using an Australian expression on a page mainly read by inhabitants of the North American continent. Well. I guess I'd better look for a more "universal" expression, or failing that, a north american expression that the rest of the english speaking world will understand.
Alternatively, I could just link to the "field day" page ...
Your thoughts?
Changing subject, I am honoured to be the subject of your first WP edit with your new WP account.
If you keep asking astute questions like that one, I'm going to have to review many of my assumptions!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm American and I happen to understand exactly what you meant. But it is a colloquialism and, to me at least, it comes across as a little too casual in tone, and I think that's what led the other guy to pick some kind of "bias" out of it. More American phrases could be something like saying the media "went crazy" or "ate it up" but both of those are just as colloquial as "field day." To my knowledge no members of the media ate this news story for lunch or were diagnosed with psychological problems, just as they did not hold a "large trade show for agricultural industry and equipment, especially for broadacre farming." Obviously it's a figure of speech for a big gathering or event of some kind. But in this context, what exactly does it mean? When I think of a "media field day" what comes to mind is a relatively trivial news story (i.e., not "real" news like policy-related things, bombings, stock market crashes, etc.) that gets an unusual amount of coverage and dominates the news cycle for a few days. That brings me to a second point...
Did this really get an unusually high amount of media coverage or is that just redundancy between various news organizations? Subjectively, I followed the election rather closely and I never heard this until I was reading this article the other day. When it comes to anything in the news it's pretty common to find the same thing from a dozen different news orgs.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make in simplest terms is 1. What exactly constitutes a "field day" in this context and 2. does that story meet the critera. Without that it's a somewhat vague figure of speech that Australians and at least one American might understand but isn't really concise enough to be "universally" understood. I could make a couple Canadian jokes here but that wouldn't really be appropriate...
And changing subjects... thanks. I've been adding commas for years and thought I'd make an account and move up the ladder a little bit.
Thanks. Limpidgreen345 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well argued. "To my knowledge ... " - That raised a smile. "what comes to mind is a relatively trivial news story ... that gets an unusual amount of coverage" - Yes.
"Did this really get ... " - I can't say. From Australia it was easy to find a seemingly endless supply of different stories, and a seemingly infinite number of copies of them. But perhaps that's just the nature of google?
"Anyway, the point I'm trying to make ... " - and you made it quite well. Unlike the previous editors comments, I "get it".
So, if we remove "As can be seen from the volume of media response, the media had a field day.", what do we replace it with?
I guess the first issue to resolve is, "Is it a relatively trivial news story, that got an unusual amount of coverage?"
As I've said, I don't know. From my side of the planet, where the volume of "stuff" has been filtered, it seemed to (undeservedly) stick out. From your side of the planet in the midst of the production of the raw data, I gather that it (deservedly) got "lost in the noise"?
Given the clarity of your explanation, I am now ambivalent about the wording of the third sentence. However, I do feel the paragraph needs a third sentence; when I read the first two sentences without a third sentence, I'm left with the reaction: "Yeah, so what?" Hence, I feel a third sentence is needed to provide the "so what" answer. On reflection, I'm not so sure that "the media had a field day" does, or ever did do, that.
Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It might not be the fall of the Soviet Union but I think it's relevant and safely un-trivial enough to be worth noting. At the risk of getting too far off on some tangent, these references from the article [1] [2] talk a little bit about licensing and such. Here [3] the Wilsons talk more specifically about not wanting the RNC to use the song at campaign events.
From that I think something might work that says that they didn't want the RNC to use the song as they disagree with the RNC's policies, the RNC paid the appropriate licensing fees that allow them to use the song as much as they want, and that Roger Fisher said he would donate the royalties he recieved as a result to Obama's campaign. Something along those lines. Renders the "field day" stuff irrelevent, gets rid of the apparent bias that the others saw, and finishes off the thought on an interesting enough note.
I seem to remember something similar to this with Bush in '04 regarding I believe a Springsteen song and I always wondered how that licensing stuff worked, and I learned more about it in the last ten minutes than I ever knew before. Anyway, how does that sound? Limpidgreen345 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"Anyway, how does that sound?" -In principle and in theory, it sounds great. In fact and in detail, there are a few things I don't understand.
Extended content
I expect you might be a bit "miffed" if I stopped there, so I'll continue. But really, I'm quite bemused by the length of this section. Clearly, I need to learn how to be more concise!
"but I think it's relevant and safely un-trivial enough to be worth noting." - I don't disagree strongly enough for it to get in the way, and no, its not the fall of the Soviet Union, but 1: What is it relevant to? and 2: It really is very trivial. It is not like the lesbianism thing, which is credited as being the spawn for Barracuda and therefore in my very biassed pov, "important". (I mean, can you imagine that Charlie's Angels film scene without Barracuda pounding over the speakers?) So really, who cares? Again my pov, I believe the article could lose the whole paragraph, and in a couple of years' time, no-one would notice.
Hence, I'm resistant to making it any bigger. (Or am I misunderstanding your intent?)
(And as I implied and you stated, yes, the "field day" stuff is irrelevant. The only reason I haven't removed it myself is because that paragraph, if it is going to exist at all, needs a third sentence.)
P.S. I'm glad you got something useful out of your 10 minutes. Personally, I think I passed the point of diminishing returns pretty soon after I read your second posting here. (And so much for me being concise!!)
"Anyway, how does that sound?" - Fantastic! Go for it!! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If it takes squeezing a not-that-significant story for a few extra lines to turn it into a real paragraph, it probably isn't really worth it after all, and looking at the Barracuda page (couldn't have done that earlier...), there's plenty of info there about this. It's "relevant and safely un-trivial enough to be worth noting" on the song's page, and barely so at that. It's frankly not really relevant at all to an article about the group as a whole. We could link to it if it's really that necessary, but to me it gets less and less necessary with every additional second I expend thinking about it. Limpidgreen345 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. However, the removal of it will probably meet with howls of protest if not done with more skill and diplomacy than I'm capable of. On-the-other-hand, you probably do have that capability, and if you need my backup, I would be happy to help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The deed is done. If somebody somehow takes issue with it after reading our discussion I'll happily deal with the ensuing crap. I'm quite capable of being diplomatic but... if all else fails we could just whap the guy over the head with a shovel and pretend he never said anything. Until that happens I think this has been successfully resolved. Limpidgreen345 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. The direct approach with the proverbial "blunt object" - a time-honoured, successful and well proven technique.
As "they" say in this community, wp:be bold! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(Oh dear. "They" also say: " ...but please be careful ". Please be careful not to damage yourself with that shovel.)


Bad marriage reference

In the 1991-1995 section it says "In 1995 Nancy decided to take a break from music to concentrate on raising a family with husband Cameron Crowe. Ann toured that year with a band that was alternately called The Ann Wilson Band or Ann Wilson & the Ricola Brothers. This lineup included Leese, Scott Olson (guitars), Jon Bayless (bass) and Scott Adams (sax)."

Ann is married to Cameron, not Nancy, but I don't know if the rest of that section is correct. Bjjohns (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you check your facts. Ann is not married. Nancy is married to Cameron Crow.
And yes, the rest of the paragraph is also correct. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Is there any reason that this sentence, "Heart is a rock band whose founding members came from Seattle, Washington, USA in the early 1970s", needs NINE references? It's hardly controversial, and even if it were, nine references would be overkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingrundzap (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to bottom, as is usual for new sections

For further reading on this subject, see an archive of this talk page Talk:Heart_(band)/Archive_3#Country of Origin and some other thoughts. Edgepedia (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason that this sentence ... needs NINE references? - Answer: Yes. (Though personally, I dispute that it needs nine references. As Edgepedia says, see the archive.)
It's hardly controversial - Oh dear! You have no idea! (As Edgepedia says, see the archive.)
and even if it were, nine references would be overkill. - No arguement from me on that comment!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Fisher

The reason why it is so hard to pin down Michael Fisher's role in the group's history is because all the members have deliberately tried to be as vague as possible. It is clear to me that they have something to hide. I strongly suspect that the truth has something to do with his draft evasion, but I think it could go far beyond that. I hope that the truth will eventually come out. It has been along time and amnesty was given to draft evaders. 216.160.96.193 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comments.
Had you written them 20 years ago, I'd probably agree. But now?
I notice that a couple of years ago, both Roger Fisher and Nancy Wilson were reported to be writing books. I haven't seen them. I wonder what their status is?
Personally, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this one seems to provide lots of fertile ground!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And can you explain why Michael Fisher himself has never made public appearances and never gives interviews? That also sounds rather suspicious to me!

It both surprises and upsets me that Heart has never been the subject of a decent book. Another conspiracy, perhaps? Books by Roger Fisher and Nancy Wilson would be interesting, I'm sure. But a band history by a professional writer who can be objective would be much better.

The best author for this project is Charles R. Cross. He is professional writer of music biographies and a life long Seattle resident. Cross did a lot of original research for his Hendrix book. He found the REAL story about how Jimi Hendrix ended his military career. Even though the Wikipedia article about Hendrix denies this, Cross uncovered a lot of evidence to support his conclusions and thoroughly backed them up. If you don't believe me read Cross's book Room Full of Mirrors: A Biography of Jimi Hendrix. If the members of Heart ever refuse to cooperate with Cross it will REALLY prove they have something to hide. Cross digs deep for info, does a lot of original research and really gets to the bottom of things.--70.58.82.115 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another bit of wild speculation and conspiracy that could involve Michael Fisher is smuggling. "Pdfpfd" doesn't know that illegal trade across the US/Canada border has been a big problem in this area for many years. Drugs are big part of the smuggling and British Columbia no longer bothers to enforce most if its drug laws. See the Wikipedia article on BC Bud. Dope is sold openly on the street and smoked legally in cafes in Vancouver. The heroin problem in Vancouver is the worst in all of North America, rivaling Amsterdam. There are also a lot of other kinds of illegal trade including human trafficking. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Michael Fisher was involved with something like this. Michael Fisher lived in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia during his time in Canada. This area is not only prime smuggling territory, it is also legendary as place for hippies, drop outs and freaks of all kinds. 70.58.82.115 (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly fascinated by your postings. I wish more people were involved in the discussion than just you and me.
Yes, you are quite right, I was completely ignorant of Vancouver's smuggling and drug sub-cultures. BC Bud & Cannabis in British Columbia made interesting reading, if only for the fact that neither had been "prod"ed or speedied because NN.
As "they" say: "You learn something new every day." Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dig a little deeper and you will find a lot more interesting news articles about this subject. The story that upset me the most was a few years ago when I heard about Canadian soldiers using their own military vehicles to smuggle dope into the U.S!!! Unfortunately I was unable to find that story again with a recent Google search. Here is a story from the Canadian Broadcasting Company which claims that 83% of all the methamphetamine seized in Australia came from CANADA! Blame Canada indeed! LOL!!

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/06/24/f-unitednations-drug-report-canada-ecstasy.html

Thanks for reading my posts. Glad to know that at least someone is paying attention. Not sure what you meant by the end of your last sentence though. What is NN?--67.40.22.62 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - wikipedia jargon. WP:NN WP:SPEEDY WP:PROD
made interesting reading, if only for the fact that neither had been "prod"ed or speedied because NN.
In English: It made interesting reading in its own right, but also because no wikipedia editor has come along and said "this is rubbish", or "this is trivial and/or not worthy of encyclopaedic interest". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. So all those stories that the Oz Police and Politicians spout about Oz outlaw motorcycle gangs mass-producing the "ice" in "backyard laboratories" may be, ahhhh, "misleading"? (I have to admit, I always wondered how you could mass produce anything in a back yard laboratory ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to understand how anyone could doubt that drugs are made in "backyard laboratories." It only takes a bit of knowledge and the right chemicals. LSD was always made that way going back to the early 1960's with Owsley Stanley, etc. Methamphetamine is made in home labs from chemicals commonly available in cold remedies sold without prescription. Terrorists do the same thing. The Millenium Bomber Ahmed Ressam cooked up explosive chemicals in Canada and was caught smuggling them into the U.S. The list goes on...--216.160.93.32 (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they are made in "backyard laboratories". I just doubt that they are "mass-produced" there, particularly in light of your statistic that 83% of it coming from Canada. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's not MY statistic! However, I don't have to make this stuff up either. I thought it was interesting that the news department of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, which is funded with taxpayer dollars, was willing to report this story at all. The story certainly didn't put Canada in a good light and there was no one forcing them to do an investigation that makes other Canadians look bad. CBC News is not ratings driven and there is no reason why they would have an incentive to blow the story out of proportion.

The ingredients for making Meth are readily available in large quantities in many places, but as the article indicates this is especially true in British Columbia. Backyard laboratory drugs can be EXTREMELY powerful. This is especially true of drugs like LSD where normally tens of thousands of doses are made at a time. The reason why Meth has gotten out of control is because the ingredients are cheap and easy to obtain. It is easy to make at home and Meth is also more powerful than many other drugs. --216.160.93.32 (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(Furious backpeddling) My humble apologies! No, it is indeed not "YOUR" statistic. My humble apologies!
So now I'm confused. The alternatives seem to be:
  • it was mass-produced by Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs in Australia;
  • it came from Canada;
  • Other.
Care to clarify? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
(BTW: Does this have anything to do with the article about Heart? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
Wow, lots of irrelevant stuff here. Maybe the reason Michael Fisher isn't discussed is because he just wasn't a very big part of the group in the first place? He may have played a little guitar for a few months, but receded to the background when it became clear that the other members were far more advanced musically. 216.65.144.24 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
"Wow, lots of irrelevant stuff here."' - I agree.
"Maybe the reason ... " - No, I can't agree with that. The facts don't support it.
Mike Fisher was the reason Anne moved from Seattle to Vancouver, and hence the rest of the band members of the time. And eventually Nancy too. If the band hadn't moved from Seattle, is it likely that there would have been a Mike Flicker-like personality in Seattle setting up a new label who would have got behind them? Is it likely that there would have been a start-up like Mushroom-in-Vancouver? Would a Mushroom-in-Seattle have developed in the way that Mushroom-in-Vancouver did?
No. Mike and his move to Vancouver was VERY significant to the history of the band. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought - I think more people might be interested in the discussion if it actually had something to do about Heart. While interesting, it's way off point and completely speculative. Awa611 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's completely speculative. And that's because there's no data. However, I vehemently disagree that it's irrelevant!!
Yes, it's off topic. (Didn't you read my comment: "BTW: Does this have anything to do with the article about Heart?"?
But off-topic is not irrelevant. As I suggest above, if it weren't for Mike (and Vietnam and the draft), it's entirely possible that they would all have stayed in Seattle, would never have changed their name to "Heart" and would never have been known-of outside of Seattle. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Alive in Seattle" sales

The citation for this only links to a statement that platinum means 1,000,000 in sales. The statement that "Alive in Seattle" has gone platinum is not true. "Alive in America" has been certified Gold **as a video longform** by RIAA. This is important, because "gold" for a video longform format is 50,000 units, not 500,000 units as it is for albums. The sentence in the article should be updated to state that "Alive in Seattle" was certified Gold as a video longform format by the RIAA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabruns (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Heart 70s.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Heart 70s.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Two questions for "Edgepedia"

What part of Ann Wilson's statement "We're from Canada. We're from Vancouver, B.C." do you consider to be accurate and correct information?

What exactly is the meaning of "is"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.191.203 (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved to bottom - that's were new discussions go.
It doesn't have to be accurate and correct, that's what she says. Perhaps she's saying thats where the band was formed, currently based or that where they first found success? I'm not hearing her say she or any of the other members of the band are Canadian, which would be incorrect.
We have rules on Wikipedia about how we treat sources, and interpreting them is not allowed. It's best to present what the sources say in a neutral way and allow the reader to make their own mind up.
I don't understand the second question.Edgepedia (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WWWHHHAAAATTT!!! You're not hearing Ann Wilson say that she or any of the other members of Heart are Canadian????? ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! That is EXACTLY WHAT SHE DID SAY!!!!

The point of the second question is that you are just playing silly games with what you consider to be "opinion" and what you do not consider to be opinion. I am trying to talk about FACTS, and you are ignoring them entirely!

There are many "sources" who have posted here that think Heart is/was Canadian. The most recent one was "Varlaam." I think you are just ignoring the obvious.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.191.203 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am planning to carry out a clean up, with a view to getting this article to GA status. This will involve fixing any language and MOS issues, sourcing statements and possibly removing those that cannot be sourced. The article will also probably need a "musical style" section to make GA. If there are any other suggestions or issues that editors wish to incorporate now is a good time to state them.--SabreBD (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I had not realised quite how many statements in the article have no citations. I would appreciate any help editors can give in finding them. Given that printed sources are so limited, a cleanup may lead to the article be significantly shorter.--SabreBD (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The requirements for citations on descriptions of music styles in this article are getting ridiculous. As an example, the song Mistral Wind was described as "starting as an acoustic ballad and building to a metal crescendo" (which is an accurate description), and a "citation required" note was added. It's not appropriate for a citation to be required for a description of a song since there is no citation other than listening to the song which can prove the statement. I would suggest that either the citation requirements be eased, or someone who is actually familiar with the band Heart and their music be designated to determine whether citations are required or not. Whomever is requiring all these citations clearly doesn't know the subject matter of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.87.181 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi 173, and welcome to Wikipedia. We are collaborating here to write an encyclopedia and one of the rules is that there is no original research — i.e. everything has been published in a reliable source. As there is commonly argument when classifying music styles (this sometimes becomes an edit war where the description is repeatedly changed) this can not be referenced to the song itself (whereas the lyrics could be). However, I'm sure there are professional, published and reliable reviews that we can use. Edgepedia (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Edgepedia has covered the main issues. The citation needed tags are partly there to aid sourcing the article, but since we cannot rely on original research they are also there to prompt those that wish to keep unsourced statements that they could be looking for reliable sources. It will be quite I while before I get to the bottom of the article and I will try to find suitable sources, but if you wish to look for these in the meantime reviews from major sources like Allmusic, Rolling Stone and Billboard are probably a good place to begin. Bear in mind that the sources need to closely support the statements we have here.--SabreBD (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to update on the clean up. Although things are progressing, despite the lack of easily accessible reliable secondary sources, I have hit a snag in finding that most of the first part of the article was lifted directly from the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock. This is a clear copyright violation. The result is that most of the first part of the article needs to be rephrased, which may slow things down.--SabreBD (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
After hours scouring the web and my book collection, the cleanup has now reached the point where I am running out of options for finding reliable sources for uncited statements. I am hanging fire until I can read the autobiography, but if editors see a need to keep currently uncited content now would be a good time to supply the sources.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sabrebd, just dropping by just to see if you were aware of this, but I see you are. Edgepedia (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am, but I really appreciated the thought.--SabreBD (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Since the IP making these changes has not brought them to the talkpage I thought I would. Generally it is best to be as broad as possible when describing a band in the opening sentence. Yes Heart are a hard rock band, but they are also folk rock and many other things. Rock is a better generic description. It is also not accurate to describe them as a becoming a "supergroup", this is not sourced and as this has a specific meaning of a group formed by already famous artists, it is not appropriate.--SabreBD (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the 2nd point - Heart isn't a supergroup by any definition. As far as the first point, I watch other groups such as Duran Duran, Eagles, Rush, CCR, etc, etc and it is a pretty common occurance for POV pushers to constantly change the bands genre - I bet I see it once per week per band. My opinion is the lead should be generic and just say "rock" while the box should have "genres" which goes a little further into what style of rock the band plays. However, that also gets dicey as Neil Peart played on ONE jazz tribute album and suddenly the IP editors were putting in "jazz/blues" as a Ruch genre. Frustrating, but nothing new. Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
It has been a week and no counter arguments have been made, so I am changing this back.--SabreBD (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Citations

I am a longtime follower of Heart, and in viewing their Wiki page it looks like a joke. There are citations required for seemingly every sentence, most of them which shouldn't need any citations.

Please do the Wilson Sisters a favor and clean up this mess and get rid of all the unrequired Citation requests. It's laughable that every sentence seems to need a new citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.198.52 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the threads above or check the edit summaries it will be clear that this article is being cleaned up. This takes time, so please be patient.--SabreBD (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Heart (band). 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:

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

checkY 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

WHOEVER IS MAINTAINING THIS HEART PAGE (THANKS!) SHOULD ADD/CHANGE THE FOLLOWING:

1 – The Lovemongers, like Ann & Nancy deserve their own tabpage/link with the following discography and not just some footnote under the chapter: Hiatus and Lovemongers (1991–2001);

  • 1992 Lovemongers - Battle Of Evermore (EP/maxi-single)
  • 1997 Lovemongers – Whirlygig
  • 1998 Lovemongers - Here Is Christmas

Discography should give artwork, tracks, release dates, info, etc.

2 – Magazine, chronologically, is the second Heart album and NOT their third. However in whatever limited format it was released BEFORE Little Queen and the fact that is was withdrawn, edited and re-released AFTER Little Queen does not make it their third album. The Discography should reflect this.

3 – 1980 - Geatest hits / Live should be moved from the LIVE ALBUMS to the COMPILATION ALBUMS since it is definitely a compilation album that happens to feature some Live tracks.

4 - 2001 - Heart Presents A Lovemongers' Christmas should be moved from the COMPILATION ALBUMS to the STUDIO ALBUMS.
This is NOT a compilation album, since that would suggest the tracks were previously released elsewhere, which is not the case. In fact this has nothing to do with Heart and it would be better to have some small information for this album directing it to the Lovemonger album Here Is Christmas.

5 – Ballads: The Greatest Hits was first released in 1996 and NOT in 2001. Information and artwork should be added to the album tab page.

First released: July 03, 1996
Re-Released: April 24, 2001
Re-released: September 29, 2003
Track Listing:
01. Alone
02. What About Love
03. All I Wanna Do Is Make Love to You
04. Without You
05. Never
06. Never Stop Loving You
07. I Didn't Want to Need You
08. These Dreams
09. The Woman in Me
10. Stranded
11. Strangers of the Heart
12. All I Wanna Do Is Make Love to You [Live] (From "The Road Home")

6 - Playlist: The Very Best of Heart, artwork and more info should be added. Nice little collectable item, enhanced audio CD.

7 – 1995 – Definitive Collection should be added to the COMPILATION ALBUMS. Very interesting collection, if only for the Bonus CD with 5 live tracks. The BIG QUESTION is the origin of those 5 tracks. When and where recorded? Here is the link with more info from Amazon.com.

8 – 2000 - Heart - Simply the Best should be added to the COMPILATION ALBUMS with artwork, track list and a WARNING that potential buyers are better of buying the “Greatest Hits / Live version with more tracks. Here is the link with more info from Amazon.com.

9 – 2008 - Soundstage Presents: Heart Live (2005) should be added to the LIVE ALBUMS. Here is the link with more info from Amazon.com.

Koch Vision and Soundstage presents "HEART LIVE" (2008) (110 mins/Color) (Dolby digitally remastered) ---
Now, an astonishing three decades later, the gals are back and better than ever. Soundstage: Heart Live, from the show's third season (2005), captures the group giving in to its love of all music. In between its numerous classics are sensational covers of Zeppelin and Elton John tracks, and there is a nice combination of all-out amplified anger and slowed-down acoustic clarity.
Heart is a rock band formed in Bellevue, Washington (a suburb of Seattle) and Vancouver, British Columbia ---
Going through several lineup changes, the only constant members of the group are sisters Ann and Nancy Wilson ---
The group rose to fame in the 1970s with their music being influenced by hard rock as well as folk music ---
After diminishing in popularity by the mid-80's, the band created a major comeback in 1985 experiencing further success with their power ballads throughout the rest of the decade.
By the mid-1990s --- Heart left their 80's sound and went back to their hard rock roots which they continue to play today. They have sold over 30 million albums worldwide
Sisters Ann and Nancy Wilson, the front women of classic rock act Heart, offer passionate performances of hits "Barracuda," "These Dreams," "Crazy on You," and 20 others in this entry in PBS Soundstage concert series ---
This intimate concert for die-hard fans is presented here in stunning HD, and includes interviews with each of the Wilson sisters.

Track Listing in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround - English

01. "Sand"--previously unreleased
02. "Kick It Out"--from the 1977 album Little Queen
03. "Straight On"--from the 1978 album Dog & Butterfly
04. "Oldest Story in the World"--from the 2004 album Jupiter's Darling
05. "Perfect Goodbye"--from the 2004 album Jupiter's Darling
06. "These Dreams"--from the 1985 album Heart
07. "The Battle of Evermore"--cover of a Led Zeppelin song
08. "Love Song"--cover of an Elton John song
09. "Lost Angel"--from the 2004 album Jupiter's Darling
10. "Magic Man"--from the 1976 album Dreamboat Annie
11. "Crazy on You"--from the 1976 album Dreamboat Annie
12. "Bebe Le Strange"--from the 1980 album Bebe le Strange
13. "Fallen Ones"--from the 2004 album Jupiter's Darling
14. "Make Me"--from the 2004 album Jupiter's Darling
15. "Even It Up"--from the 1980 album Bebe le Strange
16. "Dog & Butterfly"--from the 1978 album Dog & Butterfly
17. "Alone"--from the 1987 album Bad Animals
18. "Things"--from the 2004 album Jupiter's Darling
19. "Love Alive"--from the 1977 album Little Queen
20. "Enough"--from the 2004 album Jupiter's Darling
21. "Barracuda"--from the 1977 album Little Queen
22. "Black Dog"--cover of a Led Zeppelin song
23. "Misty Mountain Hop"--cover of a Led Zeppelin song

SPECIAL BONUS FEATURES:
Interview with Ann and Nancy Wilson: There is a 9-minute interview with Ann and Nancy that focuses on their fan base, the beauty of playing guitar, and the mandatory discussion of gender and body image issues.

Thanks Great job by Koch Vision --- looking forward to more high quality titles from the Sound Stage Collection film market --- order your copy now from Amazon or Koch Vision where there are plenty of copies available on DVD, stay tuned once again for top notch releases --- where they are experts in releasing long forgotten films and treasures to the collector.
Total Time: 110 mins on DVD ~ Koch Vision 6568 ~ (8/05/2008)

10 – AFTER COMPLETION THIS LIST SHOULD BE REMOVED! Thanks and keep up the great work …… FANATIC!-User:Str8 Shooting -(talk)

I moved these comments here from the main page. This is where changes to this article should be discussed. However, apart from a few minor issues more of this seems to be more relevant to Heart discography. Is that what was intended? In which case it probably needs to be copied to the talkpage of that article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

When did Ann Wilson join?

"When Ann Wilson joined in 1972, the band was named Hocus Pocus.[5] In 1970 the band was joined by flautist and vocalist Ann Wilson...[5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.76.158 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency.
I'm surprised to find that pinning down the date is more difficult than I imagined!
Reference [5] (http://www.webcitation.org/69iOBJV1c) contains a number of obvious errors, (e.g. "Mike Wilson moved to Canada"), so it's difficult to know how reliable any part of it is.
In no particular order, the relevant events quoted in various references on Heart (band) are:
  • Steve Fossen & Roger Fisher form The Army (1963 or 1967)
  • Name change from The Army to White Heart (1969)
  • Temporary name change White Heart to Heart, then back to White Heart (1970)
  • Reference [7] (http://www.webcitation.org/69mnmFB6s)
"in 1970 she responded to a newspaper ad placed by a band called Heart, which was looking for a lead singer. Thoroughly impressed by Wilson's powerful pipes, Heart—which consisted at the time of Steve Fossen (bass) and Roger Fisher (guitar)—immediately brought her in as lead singer. While performing a gig in upstate Washington, Fisher's older brother Mike, who had been evading the draft in Vancouver, Canada, snuck across the border to see Heart perform. Wilson fell madly in love with him. Within a few months, she succeeded in persuading her bandmates to move to Vancouver, where she could be with Mike and he could serve as their manager."
  • Name change from White Heart to Hocus Pocus (1972)
  • Name change from Hocus Pocus to Heart (1973)
  • Michael Fisher moves to Canada (?)
  • Michael visits Seattle, meets Ann Wilson, and then returns to Canada - a selection of sources relate this event, variously stating that it occurred in 1970, 1971 and 1972!
  • Ann moves to Canada (1972)
  • Steve moves to Canada (late 1972)
  • Roger moves to Canada (late 1972 / early 1973)
  • Heart "officially" formed (in Canada) (1973)
Unhelpfully, (and with no reference), Ann Wilson states:
  • "In the early 1970s she joined a local band, White Heart, which changed its name to Hocus Pocus, and then in 1974, to Heart.
To further confuse matters, Nancy Wilson (rock musician) states:
  • Quoting "Wilson and Wilson; (2012) Ch 8 - She's Here to Sing"
Ann answered an ad for a band seeking a drummer and a singer. The band was called White Heart, which included bass player Steve Fossen and Roger Fisher on lead guitar. Both were reluctant when they first saw Ann, but she impressed them with her vocal skills and, within an hour, Ann was a member of White Heart. Soon after, the band was renamed Hocus Pocus.
In June 1971, Roger's brother Michael came to see the band play. Michael was living in Canada to avoid the draft, and had sneaked over the border to visit his brother. Michael returned to Canada, but he and Ann were smitten with each other and began talking on the phone. Michael occasionally sneaked across the border to see Ann and the band. Soon, Ann left the band and moved to Canada to live with Michael in his cottage.
I think we can safely conclude that Ann's audition occurred in Seattle some time during the White Heart period (1969-1972). However, uses of the word "soon" in several places makes the actual date that Ann joined ... "unclear". Pdfpdf (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is very confusing. The problem largely revolves around the lack of a good band biography to act as a reliable source for all this. Relying on online biographies can be problematic as they are often vague, contradictory and sometimes obviously wrong. Statements from members of the band are similarly problematic, across all the years various versions of the narrative have changed and become fixed and often these cannot be considered reliable. Not surprisingly members and former members tend to play down some bits of the history. I don't really have a solution for this that results in a reliable article of sufficient length and detail to fit with the importance of the band. We can put in all the alternatives and explain them, but that will make things very messy (and a lot of these points may not really be that important) or we can have an article based around what we can be sure of, but that will mean losing quote a lot of detail (I tried this and the unsourced detail just got put back). What we have at the moment, with unsourced and contradictory statements, is certainly not a solution. I am open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I've "had a go at it" and tried to remove the obviously wrong, and highlight the obviously ambiguous and/or conflicting.
Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you say, particularly I don't really have a solution, and I am open to suggestions.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ann joins....

Here is the "raw" data from Kicking and Dreaming...it is a story (narrative) not a tick-tock timeline. I am not sure any of them actually recall with great clarity when it was.

  • The Army is portrayed as a previous band with Fisher and Fossen
  • They had both also been in a band alternately named Heart and White Heart
  • Ann knew of them from the area when she answered the ad for a new band - Hocus Pocus
I love that they had a name before they had a full band
  • Ann says "we toured the northwest that next year" indicating some time passed before she left for Canada
  • "I turned 21 in June 1971 and Hocus Pocus had become my life." that date is mentioned in between the first mention of michael and ann leaving for canada
  • The book makes it sound like she quits and moves to canada very soon after..there is very little narrative in between and 19/20 yr olds are not known for caution
  • Roger and Fossen seem to have moved to Canada early 1973 (just before this, Nancy's graduation and a New Years Eve 1972 gig for Geoff and Nancy is mentioned). 1973 seems reasonable, but very late '72 if the 2 vignettes are concurrent
  • When the band re-formed in Canada, according to Ann, they form using the name Heart (ie never Hocus Pocus in Canada though it is essentially the same band)
This is also my impression of the Army bullet point above...Army breaks up and the same core later reforms as White Heart/Heart. Ditto that Hocus Pocus breaks up then reforms as Heart.

So, there is no solid date for Ann joining, but it looks like late 1970 (the 1970 BIO cite looks good to me). They tour as Hocus Pocus for about a year to summer 1971 when Ann meets Michael. Hard to tell if it was later in 71 or early 72 when she quit. They reform in Canada in early 1973 (there is enough narrative in between to make that seem likely).

Edit: WOW. I really would not put much stock in what is in the Jake Brown book (Heart: In the Studio). Mike Flicker, founder of Mushroom Records (???); Howard Leese, Mushroom's in house arranger (??? He did come to their attention as an arranger, but he was a session guy and Mushroom?); It looks like someone collected all the interviews they could find and synthesized a book from it...lots of "Ann once said in an interview..." or "so and so told an interviewer...." Awful!


HTH Plutonix (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no argument about the Jake Brown book, I think you have summed it up precisely. You may well be right about the chronology that you have teased out of the Kicking and Dreaming book, but the problem is that doing this is pretty clearly original research and we are not supposed to be doing that here. There is also the issue that, as you say, the degree to which we rely on the Wilson sisters memory (and version) is uncertain. Also not sure what you mean by the late 1970 bio cite - do you mean the bio website that is currently the sixth footnote?--SabreBD (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasnt offering a definitive answer, just trying to add to the body of facts/knowledge relevant to the formation date. A few of the bullet points contradict points in the other "When..." block, others offer support. The Bio site I mentioned (and botched) is the one in footnote 10 - there are only a few things there at odds with K&D, but the Bio looks like it is trying to tell a streamlined narrative, not a pure history. HTH — Plutonix (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I know "Sabredb" is supposed to be an editor on here, but he/she doesn't seem to know anything about this band and keeps removing pertient details about their history while adding irrelevant information such as information about members who haven't been in the band in 3 decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.87.181 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

When editors ask you to go to the talkpage, they mean to substantiate your reasons for the edits and for the record, I carried out one revert and do not "keep" doing anything.--SabreBD (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Please add to and cite sources for this important, relevant section.68.58.125.189 (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sore thumb sentence

This sentence - "They frequented the club "Parker's" on Aurora Avenue in north Seattle during the 1970s when it was known as the "Aquarius Tavern"." - while being important information most likely, seems to be stuck in the middle of nowhere. It precedes info on 1969 and does not seem to fit well anywhere in the information on the 70's. I would like to shift it chronologically, but cannot find a good way - nor place - to do that. Perhaps someone more talented than I can accomplish the move. Perhaps it's not that important. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Binksternet. I am always reluctant to just remove items since someone else deemed them necessary or important. Perhaps more boldness on my part is needed. Nonetheless, that section reads better.THX1136 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Question on need

In the "Notes" section there are 2 "citation needed" items immediately following statements to the effect that the information offered is hard to verify. Why the need for a "citation needed" when the text states the info cannot be verified? I assume the info is offered as "possible" and in the spirit of completeness or to note controversy, hard to pin down info on the subjects addressed. I believe the tags should be removed. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed out the conjecture and moved the "Heart Partnership" statement to a better spot. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heart (band). 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:

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

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heart (band). 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:

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

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Heart (band). 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heart (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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the original link, which works just fine.--Gorpik (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

American or Canadian

@Nostalgic Broom:, @Theda:, and @RGCorris: This needs to be worked out. The prior discussion is too lenthy for me to decern an outcome, if some one could or just gain new cite or consensus here. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Heart are a band formed by US citizens, either in Seattle, USA or in Vancouver, Canada. Comparing the entry to that for the band America (which states "America is a rock band, formed in England in 1970 by multi-instrumentalists Dewey Bunnell, Dan Peek, and Gerry Beckley. The trio first met as sons of U.S. Air Force personnel stationed in London, where they began performing live") might be instructive - although America was formed in England, and had its initial success there, the fact that all the members were US citizens means that it is not usually referred to as an English band. Some similar wording might be appropriate for Heart, rather than arguing over whether the band is American or Canadian. RGCorris (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, Heart is NOT CANADIAN!

I have followed Heart since the beginning. I am a fan of the music, but I can't ignore the truth. This has been raging since 1976. The members of Heart ARE NOW and HAVE ALWAYS BEEN U.S. CITIZENS. They have NEVER been Canadian citizens. The members were active as a group in Seattle under different names BEFORE MOVING to Canada. The group was NOT founded there.

Yes, they struggled in Vancouver for a few years. They stayed long enough for the CRTC to grant them Canadian content status. This helped them get on the radio which let to a hit in Montreal. After making it big in Canada the first thing they did was come back to Seattle. Then they told people on both sides of the border that they were from Canada, which of course was FALSE. Can-Con status does not make them Canadian, and anyway they lost this many years ago. If they had been Canadian citizens they would not have lost it. The earliest Heart records in Canada did have the MAPL logo, but as soon as they got a hit they dropped it.

I appreciate the talent of the Wilson sisters. The music business is tough but the sisters have earned a bit of reputation for being devious and dishonest. Yes, they LIED to the fans. I don't know why Canadians would want to claim them as their own. It's been 40 years since the band lived there. Some of their behavior is insulting to both Americans and Canadians. I wish this would go away but some people won't give it up. Anyway, thanks for reading my rant. Rondo66 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with your conclusion, Ann Wilson and at least some of the original male members of the band did have landed immigrant status in Canada, which was presumably a factor in them having Canadian content status. RGCorris (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. We are in agreement, but I just want to add that apparently "landed immigrant status" has no official effect on Can-con status. If the information in the Canadian content article is accurate, then an artist only needs to have a place of residence in Canada for six months. CRTC and Can-con rule makers do not make immigrations decisions and don't enforce any kind of immigration rules.Rondo66 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on Heart (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:

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) 13:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy and Content Very Poor

I find this page to be very inaccurate not only with chart and historical information, but also the genre of this band's music. Has anyone with the band's management or even close friends of people in the band ever been consulted? In looking over the history of this page it appears that every time someone tries to update the page with accurate information their updates are deleted or cancelled. Very, very poor excuse for "encylopedic" content that is supposed to be accurate and informational. 2600:100C:B21C:1147:890E:956E:FBF5:C83A (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia are not based on direct input by their subjects, but on information published by reputable sources. If you find any such information missing or wrong, you can update it, as long as you provide reliable sources for your updates.--Gorpik (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Gorpik is correct. Actually Wikipedia discourages this kind of personal editing as it violates POV guidelines.
As far as "accurate information" being reverted, I can only say unless you point some of this out we can't comment on this type of anecdotal comment. If you see something that is "wrong", please feel free to change it. However, you need to know that unless you add in a source to your information, it "will be" reverted. Yes, this could maintain possibly incorrect info, but standards are standards even if previous editors may or may not have been following them... Ckruschke (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke
Genres come from music reviewers and other writers who are independent of the band. Band members, management and friends are never consulted. If a band member says something to the media about the band's genre then we can report what was said, but it doesn't change the genres listed in the infobox. That's because Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources; secondary sources are definitive, they are more important than primary sources (the band). Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

notes on the decline

I suspect that there's a distinct lack of objectivity throughout this article. The tone is various shades of fascinated praise. Cherry-picking the sources (then choosing only those comments that come across as praise) is not encyclopedic. Let's consider a variant take on the 1979 rift.

The decline of Heart began with the firing of Roger Fisher — a bad enough decision to get rid of the remaining founder, but he was a skilled tunesmith who put a guitar-driven hard rock edge on the Wilsons' more folkie sensibilities. Neither Leese nor Wilson were much as soloists, and the rocker fans began to drift away. Heart morphed into Leese 'managing' the sisters, all other personnel being bit players and for-hire temps.

None of this ought to be news, as it was noted in music rags back in the day; I think an article was even titled "Heart goes 'pop!'"

The final straw for many came after Ann Wilson suffered health/emotional issues and put on weight. "These Dreams" (1986) is the first Heart single with Nancy Wilson taking lead vocals. The video — which had heavy MTV rotation, back when MTV actually played music videos — has plenty of camera time for Leese and Nancy, but mostly hides Ann back in the shadows and behind the drums. Still a beautiful woman, fans got the impression she was being shamed for not being skinny anymore, and maybe "eased out" of the band.

So, a power ballad cost Heart some of its female fan base and some of the remaining rocker shreds; ironically, it was the band's first #1 hit, a watershed moment that saw Leese try to turn Heart into an "arena rock" act with none of the three having much natural rock sensibility. Some have said it was more "casino rock" than "arena," but it developed a hard-pop following, and the resulting music is almost entirely forgotten today on "classic rock" streams. Heart managed ONE more #1, "Alone" (1987), which succeeded primaily from lingering goodwill from "These Dreams." Heart broke the Top Ten exactly once more after that, 1990.

Again, that all was discussed back in the day.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"W.T.F." -- or, "Some basic facts, please"

It's like a really bad fairy tale being told by dotty Grandma —

Ann Wilson joined (in 1970 or 1972)
One day in 1972 (or 1971), Mike Fisher, Roger's brother, met Ann at a Hocus Pocus (or White Heart) show.

Um… so he "accidentally" met the vocalist of his brother's band at a show being played by that band???

I strongly recommend that a SINGLE source be located that takes ONE clear storyline. If there's disagreement between equally credible sources, that can be addressed in a footnote.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Another thing. The lede claims the constant center of the group since 1973 being sisters Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson, yet at the end of the article says Nancy Wilson (1974–1995, 2002–present). How is being gone for seven years "constant" except in the dewy eyes of fans?

Is Heart actually still functioning? I see their website is selling bracelets for charity: 30% off today only (11/10/17). There's also a memorial to the "recent" death of Chris Cornell, and a mention that Nancy will be appearing at Rock And Roll Fantasy Camp, "June 29-July 2, 2017". There are no dates at all on the schedule.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Heart is currently on hiatus, with both the Wilson sisters working on other projects. AFAIK neither has ruled out working together as Heart in the future. RGCorris (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" Cleanup

Received this page as an edit request from suggestbot. Started with "Genres" and "Legacy" and am holding back a week before going after other sections in case this becomes a reversion war with fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technutt (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Formation

The first sentence of the lead says that the band was formed in 1970. The infobox says it has been active since 1973. Which is it? 24.29.56.240 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to go with 1973, based on this source: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/heart-mn0000671953/biography. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
There is another mystery: Who were the founding members of the band? Sources differ. I have marked this information as dubious. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Band members

It seems like there are an excessive number of band members here. I'm unsure if subsequent to any post-Jupiter's Darling release that anyone new touring musicians were inducted as members of Heart. Does anyone have any information on this? And regardless, The Lovemongers was a separate project from Heart, so those members shouldn't be included. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The wiki page needs to be redone. Newb787 (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
But you haven't said how. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Origin of group (location)

Info seems incorrect. The band was formed in Tacoma Washington, not Seattle. They moved to Seattle and then Vancouver Canada where the wrote magic man and other hits. Please look into. Newb787 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The topic has been discussed and debated at some length, but if you have reliable sources for such information, please provide them. And in that case, you can even boldly fix it yourself. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The core members of the early band (the Wilson sisters, Roger Fisher, Steve Fossen) were all from the Seattle area, and the band is thus usually described, reasonably, as being a Seattle band. But, as related in eg Kicking and Dreaming (the Wilson sisters' joint memoir, published 2012), Heart was formed in Vancouver, to which the band's members had relocated piecemeal in the early 70s. They didn't relocate back to Seattle until after they had begun their recording career. (I'm not aware of any sources that dispute Heart's early Vancouver-basedness, either- it's a key part of the band's story.) (Note that Kicking and Dreaming indicates a 1973 formation, while the band's website ([4]) implies an "official" founding date of 1974, when Nancy joined the band.)
The section of the article covering the band's early history is frankly a mess. It's poorly sourced- some statements are cited to "Steve Fossen" (to an interview? to personal testimony from Fossen? to a book he wrote?)- and a footnote refers readers to this talk page regarding an ambiguity as to when Ann Wilson first met Michael Fisher. Presently, Kicking and Dreaming isn't cited in the article at all, which is very odd, considering it is one of the few books specifically about the band, and it clears up a lot of the confusion evident in the early history of the band. (It's maybe not ideal to lean heavily on such a source- a memoir- but the only other book I can find on the band is Jake Brown's Heart: In the Studio, which, being about the group's music, is not likely to be helpful.)
I'm inclined to rewrite the "Early bands and formation" section wholesale based on Kicking and Dreaming (with other sources where appropriate, naturally), though I'm not sure how best to word things about the band's origin location- the band being formed and initially based in Vancouver, but being comprised mostly of expat Seattlites- they're "from Seattle," yes, but the band was not "formed in Seattle." Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
(Also I have no idea where the idea that Heart was formed in, or ever based in, Tacoma, comes from.) Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No doubt that Heart played some of their early shows in Tacoma, but sorry, the members never lived there. The Wilson sisters and Fisher brothers grew up in the Bellevue/Redmond/Bothell area, northeast of Seattle. Tacoma is south of Seattle and over 40 miles from Bellevue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.103.204 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heart_(band)/Archive_4&oldid=1190639643"