This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Hell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow, man, if it's ranked Official Top Ten Best Punk Songs by the official punk rock experts in England, it must be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.165.28 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The article said he left in December 1975, but he's on the the January 23, 1976 Yonkers demos. So I altered that to "early 1976" not sure of the exact date ot even the month.
Lenbrazil (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
(moved from main page) ... it's obvious from listening to their "Blank Generation" release that punk was still very much a project under inadvertent development. While the signature rebellious/aimless/angst-ridden lyrics and innuendos are all there, other elements (like the driving crude guitars) aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RjLesch (talk • contribs) 19:54, January 11, 2002 (UTC)
Malcolm McClaren apparently saw Richard Hell in New York, and came back to London with great new fashion ideas for his protegees, the Sex Pistols. -- 165.121.112.xxx 15:51, February 25, 2002 (UTC)
Moved some things from the main page: "he looked like he didn't care" (I can't find an attribution for this quote.) "Those creative and personal differences were Richard Lloyd's growing ego as fueled by Patti Smith." (I don't understand this reference... Did the original author "64.105.246.194" mean to say Tom Verlaine rather than Richard Lloyd?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.208.84 (talk) 01:20, May 14, 2003 (UTC)
I made corrections in the editing, putting in a link to the Johnny Thunders article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.18.133 (talk) 20:57, October 3, 2003 (UTC)
"Their friends and associates Marky Ramone, Joey Ramone, Tom Verlaine and Patti Smith apparently didn't use heroin" WAS THIS Patti Smyth (his wife) or Patti Smith (AS WRITTEN) of the Patti Smith Group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.159.137 (talk) 23:13, December 12 2005 (UTC)
Hell has also been an actor. He starred in "Blank Generation," (around 1980) which includes some vintage live performances (for the movie) from CBGB's. He also had parts in "Smithereens" and "Desperately Seeking Susan."
Just thought I'd mention that in case someone wants to add it. He wasn't bad in Blank Generation, which I saw recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.242.92 (talk) 20:12, April 28 2006 (UTC)
66.108.61.240 (talk · contribs) IS Richard Hell I have every reason to believe and as such should NOT be involved in this entry!! (check out the history page for edits of the main article and note the hagiographic and personal info included - very RH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.12.53 (talk) 03:11, March 30 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss the issue raised on the talk page of 66.108.61.240 regarding "dueling versions." I believe the present version (which has been "reverted" in versus edited and discussed) is too long and hagiographic. I say keep it factually informative and sourced and npov. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.15.75 (talk) 04:04, April 4 2007 (UTC)
Neither version of this that I see is terribly NPOV, and for the most part they're poorly references. References are badly needed for statements like him "originating" the punk look, or whatever that's saying. There was also a lot of editorializing in both versions ("shows his ornery side" vs. "excoriates the young interviewer's presumptions", for example, both are editorials.) I've tagged the article for cleanup and referencing attention, and will do some myself as well. I would also encourage both editors to be mindful of the three-revert rule. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the latest edit, the one that's been repeatedly reverted. I'll explain. I'm writing about Richard Hell and have used his archives that are deposited at Fales Library at NYU for research. I would like to know what is here regarded as unsubstantiated or in need of citation. Virtually every punk history credits Hell with originating most of the elements of punk clothing style, as well as much of the attitude (via such songs as "Blank Generation" and "Love Comes in Spurts", each seminal both in musical style and in message and both originating in 1974--WAY before any other "punk" group. That year is also when Richard first appeared in his first group at CBGB and was repeatedly photographed with spiked hair and torn and stencilled clothes, also way before any other band member. This can be seen in innumerable punk histories. There is no disputing it.). I cited one of Malcolm McClaren's admissions that he used Hell's style in coming up with the look of the Sex Pistols. He's admitted it often and in many wordings. In fact the whole first section of the Wiki entry, citing the Rough Guide early British punk acknowledgements of Hell's musical influence as well, was beefed up in detail by me because I checked the Wikipedia article one day and saw that some irresponsible person had tagged nearly every sentence with a demand for a "citation". I didn't write the original descriptions of Hell's historical role in that section, I only added the detailed citations regarding the punk influence he'd been credited with by previous Wiki contributors in the section. I only did it to dispose of the malicious abuse of Wiki protocol exhibited by the person who'd tagged every other sentence with a demand for a "citation". Then some other person started changing the article in negative ways making untrue statements that couldn't cite reliable sources because they were untrue. So I reverted to my original article. My edit of the article is straightforward, and strictly and simply true. There's nothing controversial in it. I'm not really a Wiki regular and I don't have the time to enter into an involved procedure here, but all this does demonstrate to me why Wiki has been deemed unqualified as a source of citations by universities and serious researchers--too many people use these pages to deliberately misrepresent the facts. It's the same principle as spam and malicious viruses. There are a lot of vandals out there, and they have more time and energy to devote to such practices than the decent citizens have to spend counteracting them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.61.240 (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This is not true. I have not added substance, but simply given citations for data that earlier contributors have included. But someone who has some personal problem with Hell--you presumably--keeps reducing and revising the entry in ways that denigrate Hell or distort his story or simply treat him meanly. For instance how can you justify repeatedly removing half the seven or eight links to quite interesting further web material about him in the Links section? And I haven't been simply reverting. I have tried to resolve this weird situation by compromising even though I think what this person doing is unfair and unethical in the context of the encyclopedia. I've rewritten and removed solid data I'd added in an effort to satisfy this person who doesn't want to credit Hell with any achievements. But nothing satisfies this person. Most other biographical entries in the encyclopedia are positive. They're written by people who respect the person who is being described. I can only repeat what I say above about how everything in my edits is verifieable, and I have added verification when challenged, even though the challenges are unreasonable. Much of the material in Fales isn't BY Richard, but rather a lot of historical record concerning him that establishes fact, from newspaper articles and pictures fixing the dates that things happened to such things as the 1976 letter from the Heartbreakers' manager I cited proving that Hell quit rather than was fired from the Heartbreakers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.61.240 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is wrong and a subversion of the spirit of Wikipedia for this editor to have gotten his particular version of the Hell article "protected" so that other editors may not contribute. I was going back and forth with this editor about how the Hell article should read, but I was compromising with the person--including material I thought irrelevant or misleading that the editor kept insisting on retaining--even when I thought it was unfair, just to reach a resolution. Now this person has managed to get his or her slanted version "protected" so that it can not be altered. It's misleading, for instance, to say Hell was a junkie for 20 years, "off and on" or not. Hell has always been forthcoming about his drug use. He had a drug problem 30 years ago (1977-1984 or so) and then relapse for a year or two around 1990, but has been completely clean since 1992, using no drug stronger than coffee--he doesn't even drink or smoke. It's ugly and unwarranted to call him a drug addict the way this editor does. Also why mention GEEK MAGGOT BINGO? Hell was in numerous obscure underground movies, some far more significant than GEEK. I think the GEEK reference is a giveaway that this editor is connected to "Nick Zedd," a person who's often attacked Hell and who directed that movie. Why remove half the links? I DID NOT add links--the abusive editor just wants Hell to seem less important and interesting than he is. The article is written in such a way as to make Hell look bad. Another instance is where the editor repeatedly writes that Richard "quit or was fired" from groups. Nearly all sources agree he departed the two groups in question by choice, but if you insist I can grant a neutral wording such as "Hell left" such groups. But no, this editor has gotten his mean-spirited version "protected." Also to say the Sex Pistols "refuted" McLaren's description of them as being highly influenced by Hell's clothing style is to mislead. They didn't "refute" (which is to demonstrate as being false) but rather they "disputed" (which is to make an opposing claim). (And this is all incorrect anyway, since there is no doubt whatsoever that the most famous Pistols' clothing was provided by their manager McLaren from his boutique Sex--which also provided the band's name--so if McLaren himself admits that those clothes were highly influenced by Hell, then the Sex Pistols' appearance was obviously influenced by Hell, no matter how much they might want to pretend otherwise.) In the final analysis I'm just making the point that this editor is prejudiced and has an agenda and shouldn't have been allowed to put his version of Hell up as the definitive "protected" one that no one else can contribute to. Roosterer 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Posted to Wikipedia:Third opinion was a two part request for a third opinion. The second of which was this:
--PBS 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
Who claims that Hell was the orginator of punk fashion? What is the source for this statment? When did MM says Hell was the inspiration and what is the source? Which memebers of the SP dispute this and who says that they do? --PBS 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to what the editor says who wants to slash the Hell article and describe him derisively, I have really not added much of substance--the only things I remember adding were a few facts regarding Hell's parents. Apart from that the only reason I contributed to the page was because I looked at it one day and some unreasonable person who obviously just meant to attack and make problems had added a demand for a citation to nearly every sentence in the article. So I gave substantiating details to some of the statements in the first section --though I HADN'T written the original material describing Hell's music and look as being extremely influential upon the 1977 and earlier punk bands. A statement (not written by me) in that section, to which a demand for a "citation" had been added, read something like, "Hell was the inspiration for the Sex Pistols' look and attitude, as well as the safety-pin accessorized clothing McLaren sold in his London shop, Sex." To supply a source for that statement, I rewrote it slightly for clarification, and added:
McLaren returned to London from New York in 1975 intending to put together a group in Britain, and as he said in an interview published in the definitive punk oral history Please Kill Me, "I came back to England determined. I had these images I came back with, it was like Marco Polo or Walter Raleigh. I brought back the image of this distressed, strange thing called Richard Hell. And this phrase, 'the blank generation.'" The group he then put together would be the Sex Pistols, named after McLaren's clothing store.
All the information is derived from interviews with McLaren published in Please Kill Me, though he speaks about Hell's influence elsewhere as well. Then, when the editor kept slashing that passage, I voluntarily compromised and rewrote it in the simple form you see in the article now. Still the aggressive editor had to remove that COMPROMISED treatment and try to freeze his mean-spirited and deceptive version by having the page locked. (I don't know the source of the statement that the Sex Pistols dispute that their look was influenced by Hell. I don't doubt it though--they liked to portray themselves as the only group in the world--as so many groups tend to like to do. Still I'd like to hear what my nemesis editor would name as source.)
I do not buy the aggressive editor's claim that he's without point of view. The only changes he makes are to denigrate Hell and make him seem small. Why does he take out half the links to offsite Hell material? Why does he say Hell's books come from small presses? PowerHouse, for instance, the publisher of Hell's very highly thought of and substantial hardcover book HOT AND COLD, is a MAJOR art book publisher--see http://www.powerhousebooks.com/index.html --). Akashic, the publisher of GODLIKE has won numerous awards and published many important books. The editor just wants to associate "small" with Hell. If you want proof of Hell's achievements as a writer in recent years, just look at his catalog at his site (http://www.richardhell.com/helllit.html). The editor under reveiw also took out what someone (NOT ME) had written, which has also been said in many articles and reviews, that the Dim Stars was an indie or Alternative "super group"--and the editor changed that to insultingly describe the band as a Thurston Moore "side project" or something like that, when Hell wrote all the bands lyrics, as well as did all the singing, and played all the bass (did these three things on all but maybe two out of the CD's 14 or so songs). There's no question, this person's only purpose is to cut down Hell. That's not a legitimate activity for an encyclopedia writer. Then he starts saying here on this page how much more important than Hell the Ramones and Sex Pistols are. That's a further huge giveaway of where he's coming from. What's the relevance of that??? Those groups have huge articles in Wikipedia. The purpose of Hell's article isn't to rate him in comparison to other groups. Hell has great respect among musicians and deserves a respectful treatment here. The Ramones are great, the Pistols are great. Hell has written essays lauding both. But the editor who keeps changing Hell's article in order to make it look like Hell has accomplished less than he has is betraying the spirit of Wikipedia and of true punk spirit as well. Roosterer 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
O.k., I supplied references for that paragraph. If you want more, let me know, but I can only do a little at a time. Thanks for the helpful and scrupulous attention you're giving this. I hope you won't require references for every detail though. I would think that a lot of this would be uncontroversial, but I'll try to do what you ask. Roosterer 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to make the article tighter, so that readers can digest the relevant summary info w/o being loaded down w/excess details. Let me know if you think anything should be added back as informative and necessary, weighing the fact that we do want it to be trim but muscular. Eg, I thought citing the Rough Trade book for the observation that his song was considered a top 10 punk song by many was sufficient w/o adding a whole paragraph of names. Similarly, I think info about his parents can be kept slim; referencing a bio as a source would be useful. I left the list to other sources of info in the end as it is but would ask you pick and choose; it is not a bibliography but a few well-chosen cites for readers to go to for more info (there are wiki guidelines on this). His acting I feel should be mentioned in the body of text. If you feel his starring role in Geek MB should be replaced w/something else, let me know what. Nick Zedd has his own Wiki entry and has shown at moma and Hell stars in the film so I thought it was an appropriate site. If they had a public falling out I suppose you could add that reference if it is notable. Hope I've explained my edits, feel free to discuss or dispute any/all if on reflection you feel strongly and I will respond (my server has problems so it may be a day or two but I will). (I do think he is clearly best known as frontman of Voidoids; consequently I deleted probably; let's discuss if you honestly think he is best known as something else; that's a perfect for a vote item if there is a serious question). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.43.230 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I have been a little slow on the uptake, but I have been preoccupied with much work. I don't see most of the wording changes you describe. Maybe you meant that you were just discussing doing them, though it sounded as if you were saying you'd actually done them. Maybe Philip thought they were hasty and reinstated the original texts. I can see rewording the ROUGH GUIDE reference and I'll do that now, turning most of the information into a footnote. I don't see the necessity of much of the rest of the changes you talk about. The "probably" wording seems reasonable since I'd bet there are more people who know the name "Richard Hell" simply as a musician and/or writer than who know the entire name of the band. I think the information about his parents is interesting. I'll add citations for it soon. As for GEEK MAGGOT BINGO, Hell's starring role in the 1978 35 mm feature BLANK GENERATION directed by Ulli Lommel is much more significant than the crude 16 mm GEEK which only had Hell onscreen for maybe fifteen minutes, and Richard also starred in the NYC underground feature FINAL REWARD, and acted in WHAT ABOUT ME?, in both of which he does more than in GEEK. But none of these are a large or meaningful part of his career, and none of them are very highly regarded or widely known. They're obscure New York underground movies that are essentially amateur. The only movie which really had any impact and in which Richard is well handled and does well is Susan Seidelman's SMITHEREENS, which is mentioned already in the trivia section. If there is to be an expansion I'd think it would be in descriptions of his books, where he really shines. The books have gotten a lot of respect and it's the way he's made his living for twenty years. I'll trim the links a little, as you suggest (Also, I have that issue of CONDUIT that includes the interview with Hell that Mike Watt, who was bass player for the Minutemen and now for the new Iggy & the Stooges, put up at his blog. It is correct as transcribed at the blog.) Thoughts? Roosterer 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have never, EVER read this claim anywhere. Who made this statement other than the author of the article? Personal opinions are fine, but to make a statement like that here without any historical quotes to back it up is just silly. --MG196 17:13 22 June 2007
To reply to this challenge to the idea of the Neon Boys recordings being the first punk tracks... It was 1973 and this band on these two cuts ("Love Comes in Spurts" and "That's All I Know") were playing violent, fast, short, aggressively and mockingly yelled/sung songs. "Spurts" made fun of the idea of "love" too, and that was a new thing to do in rock 'n' roll and became a major signature concept of punk. The band also had short hair and dressed in torn clothes and leather jackets. Within a year, with one other musician added, and a name change (to Television), they would be the first band playing at CBGB. These are all good reasons to consider the possibility of calling these songs the first punk tracks. Sure, there are plenty of other plausible contenders, but it's not crazy to suggest the possibility that those songs are the first punk recordings in the modern sense of punk.
I know that the name of the boarding school Hell attended in Delaware, where he and Tom Verlaine met, was not "St. Andrews" as someone recently wrote. I have researched Hell's papers at the Fales Library at NYU and that is not the name of the school. 66.108.61.240 11:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone added this to the Hell entry: "Hell also co-wrote and starred in the 1980 film 'Blank Generation', which featured many songs from the Voidoids' album of the same name. The film was loosely based on Hell himself, and featured French actress Carole Bouquet as his love interest." I'm removing it because it's untrue. Hell gets a small writing credit on the film, but Hell has disassociated himself from the movie many times. As he writes in his published notebooks (published by Hanuman Books as ARTIFACT in 1990), "Anyway, by the end of the movie Lommel [director and writer of the film] was bringing in new scenes to shoot every day, none of which had any perceptible relationship to the original script and which he refused to explain even to the extent of saying where in the chronology of the script they were supposed to come. It was impossible and, having no idea what I was supposed to be, I finally was just nothing." Also there are NOT "many" songs from the album in the movie--there is exactly one, and short excerpts from two more, all played live, and then one that's supposed to be in a recording studio is lip-synched. As I wrote above in the Edit Talk "Attempt to make the article tighter," "The only movie which really had any impact and in which Richard is well handled and does well is Susan Seidelman's SMITHEREENS, which is mentioned already in the trivia section." I think people are using the entry to publicize movies for their own purposes, not because the movies are interesting or that they have any meaning in Richard's career. He's a writer and a musician. If there's going to be a list of his achievements outside of music it should be books.Roosterer 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph cited is not talking about fashion, but the song Pretty Vaccant and how it came from McLaren pressuring the Pistols to write a song like Blank Generation. Ripped, and torn tee shirts with Nazi and Biker imagery were sold by McLaren and Weswood from the beginning when the shop was called Let it Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.207.238 (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews is to interview Richard Hell about his life, music, career and future. If you have a serious question for Hell, please leave it on my talk page under the title "Richard Hell interview". --David Shankbone 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone inserted "Born to Jewish parents" at the start of Hell's Bio section. I removed it. As described in numerous places, even including the scabrous Heebie Jeebies at CBGBs, which is a book by a Jew trying to portray Punk music as Jewish, Richard didn't have "Jewish parents." His father, who died when Richard was seven, was an athiest non-practicing Jew, and his mother was a southern WASP Methodist who taught Richard nothing about Judaism. So if someone really thinks it's so important to specify every particle of everyone's ethnic background, that's the information. I don't think it's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.20.206 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the line that stated that RH was currently (2008) in the studio with three guitarists recording a new album. That was clearly a misinterpretation of the info that Hell was recording in that period with three guitarists, but the project was in fact the "repair" of his 1982 DESTINY STREET album, which undertaking (DESTINY STREET REPAIRED, released in 2009 by Insound) is already described in this article...
These sources do not ever belong in External links. I have moved the link farm there to this talk page where they do belong. Warning: I didn't check them over, so be careful in choosing any references here. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone clear this up? Most of the interwebs, including this wiki page, cite Richard Hell's birthday as 2 October 1949. His personal page on Facebook shows 18 September 1949. His website says "3 months before 1950".. not much help. genesee.gbh (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
User 67.169.230.150 keeps insisting on changing the release date of the first album from 1977 to 1976, without explanation or sources. All known sources say 1977 and this should not be changed unless a source saying 1976 can be identified. Can anyone else please also try and explain this to the user, who refuses to understand that a change like that has to be sourced?Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Richard Hell. 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.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Hell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
I think this article is bad and incorrect because one user who wants to give a negative impression of Richard Hell has been aggressive and dominated the editing and then even gone to the lengths of "protecting" the page so that no one else may edit. The page "protection" is unwarranted. As an editor, I was trying to compromise with this person by finding a middle ground between that editor's negative approach and my fact-based if somewhat admiring approach. I never included information that wasn't verifiable. It is the user who has "protected" the page who has repeatedly reverted the article to that user's version, whereas I tried to compromise. It's misleading, for instance, to say Hell was a junkie for 20 years, "off and on" or not. Hell has always been forthcoming about his drug use. He had a drug problem 30 years ago (1977-1984 or so) and then relapse for a year or two around 1990, but has been clean since 1992, using no drug stronger than coffee--he doesn't even drink or smoke. It's ugly and unwarranted to call him a drug addict the way this editor does. Also why mention GEEK MAGGOT BINGO? Hell was in numerous obscure underground movies. I think the GEEK reference is a giveaway that this editor is connected to "Nick Zedd," a person who's often attacked Hell and who directed that movie. My main objection to the article though is that one editor, the one who has been guilty of repeated reversions and is clearly hostile to Richard Hell, has gotten the last word and written the article that will stay up "protected." I could point out many other ways that information on Hell listed by this editor is incorrect or presented in a negative light, but the main point is that it's unfair to give one editor control. Roosterer 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)