Talk:Tracey Ullman
From the article:
- In 1984, she had great success as a singer on the legendary punk label Stiff records, where she had six songs on the British Top 100 in less than two years, including her first hit "You Broke My Heart in 17 Places", and the international hit "They Don't Know".
This wasn't punk. Her songs were over-the-top evocations of 60s and 70s pop music with an 80s edge, "somewhere between Minnie Mouse and the Supremes" as England's Melody Maker put it, or "retro before retro was cool", according to a retrospective review. --Ortolan88
I'm not following the plot here. You say in your Summary line: "[meta comments moved to talk -- be bold Ortolan88 and edit-out the "punk" statement and include your own thoughts]".
I don't see anything wrong here, and certainly no cause for deletion. These aren't my opinions at all and I don't think they should be. What is there to be bold about?
It is news, if you will, that "Our Trace" recorded on Stiff, but having said that, it had to be made clear that she wasn't a punk artist as virtually every other Stiff star was. I thought I should characterize the music accurately, which I did, after listening to "They Don't Know". Not punk, but retro with attitude. That is a description, not an opinion.
Both the Melody Maker and the "retro" quote came from the semi-official "Go Home" site, but it would have been too complicated and wordy to give it a clear and correct credit so I made it anonymous. But it wasn't me.
I will listen to what you have to say before restoring this innocuous and informative material to the article. If the wording is confusing, please let me know, but gee, my heart is pure here. Ortolan88
- The wording is confusing - it appeared to be an inserted comment which was trying to refute the above statement and not simply the opposing ideas of another group. Please do put the removed sentences back in. However, please do modify "This wasn't punk." to something like; "Others contend that her work can not in fact be considered to be punk, because....". Hope this helps. --maveric149
Okay, cool. rewrote it. tried to make short sentence do too much work. I think I'll delete this talk unless you think it has historical value.
Ortolan88, i changed the article because i felt that DOB should just be (December 30, 1959 -) and not include where someone was born in that part of the article. i have done this with others and no one has objected before. may i ask what your objection is? --Anon
- I think it was less of an objection and more of a matter of style -- I voted for your way of doing things Anon by changing the article and I hope that Ortolan88 agrees with the change (the current format is the "standardish" way of doing things around here). --maveric149