Talk:The 69 Eyes

Billboard review

Goth rock moved in many different directions in the '90s and early 2000s, ranging from high-tech, heavily programmed electro-goth at one end to more organic, guitar-powered goth at the other. And goth rock doesn't get much more guitar-powered than Finland's the 69 Eyes, who have successfully combined the gloominess of Bauhaus and the Sisters of Mercy with influences that include the Doors, Alice Cooper, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, the Stranglers and even headbangers like Guns N' Roses, Rob Zombie and Motörhead. The 69 Eyes may be the most rock & roll band in goth rock (perhaps their music should be called "goth & roll"), and in fact, there are plenty of goth purists who will no doubt hear Framed in Blood: The Very Blessed of the 69 Eyes and insist that this best-of CD isn't really goth rock. They will claim that rockin' tracks like "Crashing High," "Ghettoway Car," "Too Much to Lose" and the Scandinavian hit "Gothic Girl" are merely punky hard rock or alternative rock with goth overtones; that no true goth band would have all the Lemmy Kilmister-isms that assert themselves on "Wrap Your Troubles in Dreams," "Tang" and "Velvet Touch." But whether one sees these performances (which span 1995-2002) as true goth or merely goth-influenced, the fact is the 69 Eyes are infectious and a lot of fun. The word "fun," of course, isn't often used in connection with goth rock (which is known for its ultra-seriousness), but it's a word that easily describes the 69 Eyes on their own material as well as their clever remake of Blondie's "Call Me." For those who haven't experienced the "goth & roll" pleasures of the 69 Eyes, Framed in Blood would be an excellent starting point. ~ Alex Henderson, All Music Guide

Lets analyze this review, from Alex Henderson. This seems to be the source to support it into "gothic rock." But he goes on to mention bands that are not gothic rock. Rob zombie? Motorhead? Guns n roses? Alice cooper? They mention a few bands that can be considered connected to gothic rock but he goes on to stress that in comparison to gothic rock they only seem to show influences or overtones. He seems to question the matter. Again, some may call them "gothic rock influenced" (which I wouldn't) which is already included in the article, this reviewer like many others throws around invented terms like "goth n roll" and "goth punk." Its almost as bad as people who try to use "love metal" with that crappy HIM band. This seems to only support influence, not actual gothic rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Names

I've noticed that some articles about bands will have the members' real names and then nicknames in quotations, if no one minds, I'm going to do that to this article. (So like, "Jussi Heikki Tapio 'Jussi 69' Vuori".) If someone thinks that should be written differently, then by all means, do something, but for now I think it would make the article a tad bit more encyclopedic if we had their real names.--FaerytaleMalice 09:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And with the names I've noticed that people that calling the bassist Archzie, I don't know if this is correct or not but on their official website it says his name is Archie and on their myspace it's Archzie. So I don't know.... maybe someone can change it or leave it. Welshy1791 08:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Genre

In their official Myspace their genre is discribed as gothic/rock so keep it!Also in their official site is mentioning about that.Xr 1 19:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Myspace is irrelevant. The genre-tags in myspace are very limited. --~Menorrhea 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but in their site they consider theirselves as Goth band.Just read the whole biography.Or I have to citate. "The future turned goth" is said there. And Because you don;t think they are a gothic group that doesn't mean the really aren't!I asked about goth group and everyone said them!

The 69 Eyes' opinion is irrelevant. Many gothic rock groups didn't use the term Gothic rock, e.g. Sisters of Mercy, Fields of the Nehilim etc. But they were Gothic rock bands. Today, there are many new groups such 69 Eyes or HIM. They use the term Gothic rock, but they're not really Gothic rock. That's funny, but it's real. The 69 eyes is a typical Sleaze Rock group with an influence of Metal. --~Menorrhea 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Their music is dark,mostly slow,melodic and gothic.They have goth appearance.People describe them as goth rock,even as goth metal(see in www.allmusic.com , and they describe theirselves as goth.So I concider them as a goth band.

GOTHIC ROCK described an old music genre, based on the foundations of POST PUNK, PSYCHEDELIC ROCK and GLAM ROCK.

The 69 eyes don't use elements of those genres. They're a sleaze rock / hard rock / dark rock band with a strong metal influence. --~Menorrhea 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh...Just stop kidding yourself.There have been three waves of goth rock so it has changed in years.And first when I visited the article it was written GOTH ROCK.Well I guess you have changed this.Why since people consider them as goth?Or you are a true goth an you want to keep things like they was in the 80s?And another thing.Wikipedia works with sources.No sources-no genre.Where in the Internet they are said to be sleaze rock/glam rock/whatever NOW???If you find it I'll not change the genre.But if you not I'll change it everytime you remove goth!Xr 1 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah kiddie goths think that 69eyes and HIM are Goth. Pseudo-goth. They think that any music group with dark clothes is a goth group. But they don't know the stylistic elements of Gothic rock. Without a typical psychedelic rock and post-punk sound the music is definitely no Goth rock. You're looking for the third wave of Gothic rock? Look there --~Menorrhea 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually gothic rock is an old genre that has not seen "much" change, that is why there are genres like gothic metal for bands like this. Sure, sure we can say that goth rock has "changed" but the term goth rock refers to the new wave, post punk sound and if it is a different sound that deviates enough from this than it is a different genre. Here is a hint:Metal bands have a different history and background. That means that no matter how much you think "gothic rock" has "evolved," if it is a band that is closer to metal than it probably is not goth in the slightest because they are nowhere close. Even the genre gothic metal is a joke, but people seem to insist the "gothic adjective" for bands like this when a historical background for the gothic movement in the eighties is already well established. I saw one day someone just come around and add several genres which were clearly just what he thought the band was at that moment of the day, but unless there is verification from a source (A REAL source, that is credible in that area to say they are gothic rock and not some metal critic or magazine..) but you will not find it so let us just end it it here. You can push the not sourcing genres that are popular today, but you need some evidence to back up that a gothic rock band (a genre which is little popular today and really is not listened to anyone in pop culture) is 69 eyes.

kiddie goths think that Evanescence is a goth band... I listen to many goth music - Sister of Mercy,Lacrimosa,Bella Morte,Clan of Xymox...and I can say that The 69 Eyes's music is gothic.Xr 1 12:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lacrimosa isn't Gothic rock... Until 1993/94 they played Darkwave music. In later years they played Gothic metal. The 69 Eyes is definitely no Goth rock group. It's a rock/metal band, the vocalist sounds like Peter Steele of Type O Negative. --Diluvien 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lakrimosa isn't gothic metal...hear some bands like paradise lost or tristania The 69 eyes are goth.

Lacrimosa created their variant of Gothic Metal on the albums "Satura" and "Inferno". The 69 eyes are Sleaze rock.

I'm new to the Wikipedia, so I HOPE I my opinion can help... Okay, about their genre... It seems that most people noticed that The 69 Eyes fall a bit out of classic Gothic Rock. But music had changed during the last 20 years, so let it go. And who can say what DEFINES gothic rock. The music has been changing, there has been some bands that were considered gothic just because the they were there when the scene had begun, and others (like Sisters of Mercy) have been a great influence and considered part of the scene, though they fled from such categorizations. If we review today's scene we'll see there are thing these bands have in common: prominent use of deep bass vocals, deep-tuned guitars, heavy pluck-playing style, brooding bass, and off course... dark lyrics! If you listen through the Blessed Be and Paris Kills albums, you'll see that all of these define their sound. What may be arguable about it is their earlier albums, like Wasting the Dawn, which exhibit no, or rarely any of these caracteristics. They do sound very "garage" on those records, I agree with that. About their newer albums, like Devils and Angels, it seems that they have moved more towards general Rock sound, but they have kept their reference points. But, mind that, they're a different type of Gothic Rock, and all music can't be the same: they have influences from Garage, Sleaze, Gothic Metal, and what not, but they've always been aiming at the Gothic audience, and for a pun: THEY DO DRESS BLACK!

I hope my opinion has helped and not offended anyone. Wlad87 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That HIM that everyone so loves is kiddie music, I mean they made Dark Light, but it's not the same with 69 Eyes. There's a thing with bands from countries that don't have English as their maternal language - they write a bit childish lyrics, SO please forgive them if they're not from America. As for the music, they make music just to have fun. It's modern music, it's doesn't suck like many underground bands that can't tell their asses from they're heads (I'm not saying that there aren't good underground bands). There's a lot of people who listen to the Goth music, plus they listen to The 69 Eyes. If you don't like them, that's just your opinion. I myself listen to them merely because I find them amusing. As I said before all music can't be uniform.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlad87 (talk • contribs) 21:55, June 16, 2008

This is not a message board. Take your conversation elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

There was a piece of trivia on this page that i deleted because it more so applied to Jyrki only, as opposed to the whole band. I put it on Jyrki's personal, SEPARATE page. I hope no one minds...if someone does then i could change it back. Rock on!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.1.119 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protection?

I asked for semi-protection of this article due the anon IP genre "offencive" against band's goth label. :) The Merciful 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is One Problem With This Page and It Ticks Me Off to See it, and Now That Its Protected I Cannot Change it. JUSSI IS NOT THE ORIGINAL DRUMMER HE HAS SAID SO HIMSELF. He is the second drummer, he only played two gigs with The Eyes' before they were discovered and signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.124.56 (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre changes

I removed gothic rock earlier, as nothing on this page is cited. Someone did attempt to cite it, but the citations were poor in quality. Sputnikmusik is a community driven site, with brief descriptions written by unsigned people. I can not even verify who is using these "buzz terms" like "gothic melancholy" and "goth n' roll" that are supposed to be the support for including this band in a movement that occurred 20 years before 69 eyes' mainstream success. Gothic rock bands, authentic ones with post-punk and new wave sound, are rare these days and the source should be more credible than unsigned, community-based review sites with brief descriptions. One of the sources even listed the official website of 69 eyes as its source, which is unacceptable.

[1] what is your opinion about this source? Xr 1 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless of my opinion it is a poor source. It is not so much "my opinion" that matters here. Read the wiki on sources, in the polices. One thing is to verify who wrote it; this does not say who wrote it at all. I think you are looking for the wrong sources; you keep showing stuff that just casually describes them. There are sources out there that actually review bands, but you keep pulling up stuff that goes off subject. This source, for instance, is advertising a contest. It than gives a brief description, calling it "gothic rock, garage rock, with a touch of glam rock/sleaze rock." However, if you read the gothic rock article and read the list of gothic rock bands article you will see that garage rock and sleaze rock have nothing to do with gothic rock. Glam rock had a small influence, but thats all. You can mention in the article that people say they have influences of gothic rock, but the genre category is for specific genres they belong to. Gothic rock was a movement that came out of the post-punk and new wave scene in the early eighties, and once you get into the nineties you see a decline of bands that actually belong to to the gothic rock genre because most of them were in the eighties and now there are relatively few people who can actually credibly call them gothic rock, compared to the many, many magazines that cover industrial and metal and many critics out there who can identify them. Compared to today's mainstream music, gothic rock would be be considered too "eighties" sounding or too "soft sounding." That is because gothic rock is almost a "dead genre" and not many "kids" listen to it anymore or even know what it is. It is not in popular culture, so people sometimes use gothic rock as a buzz word for anything they see as dark. So the problem is, gothic rock is not "just dark" it is a legitimate genre with a verifiable history. So, I certainly think it would be in order to say they are influenced by gothic rock but to have the audacity to include them in the genre is probably not going to be possible unless 69 eyes suddenly plays music that actually sounds like gothic rock. Than maybe they can catch the eye of those that critique and specialize in such music. Even on the gothic rock articles and list of gothic rock bands people exclude 69 eyes because they stand out compared to all of the original bands that were actually there when the genre was around. You can look at the talk pages on those articles if you wish. It is almost more of a history lesson, if anything else. Also, thank you for taking the time to read the talk page and discuss it here.

Well - there are no other sources that states to which genre belong the 69 eyes...in that case I can argue if they are garage rock (hypothetically).As you said the 69 eyes do not play the original gothic rock...but have been influenced and in their sound can be found much from it. Btw what you have written was really good and edifyingly.You're right about the new dark thing and so on..but about the 69 eyes - I still think goth rock should be included. Xr 1 17:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can think? IMO you're a stupid kid. The 69 eyes were never a goth rock group.

hey, you, 87.122.12.207 haven't you got anything to do?Go learn how to communicate.Xr 1 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think they should still be included? Its a touchy subject for me, because gothic rock as a genre is heavily involved with the subculture itself as well as having its own sound. They do not fit into what defines a gothic rock band in the genre. Its apparent in links across the web, like for this one http://www.new-noise.net/album-reviews/the-69-eyes/angels/the-69-eyes---angels_2282.html Again, we see the usual "goth/punk/glam!" buzz words all shoved together. Than, this writer connects them to things that are not associated with the gothic rock genre or subculture at all. Type O negative? Danzig? HIM? AFI? Aiden? All the things that an eighties goth rocker would not listen to. So I have here what "seems" to be proof that they belong to the gothic rock genre, given the description, but further along we see most writers have absolutely no idea what gothic rock is. I mean really, Lost Boys? Back in the day, people were drawing off the mystique of movies with Vincent Price and Bela Lugosi and anyone who still is a part of this "underground" subculture still do that to this day. The group sounds like a "wannabe" goth group; anything that has to do with vampires and melodramatic about death and melancholy is supposed to be goth? I do not see them mention any influences on that link about Andrew Eldritch or Peter Murphy; sex gang children? Those guys rarely actually sung about those things, but they sometimes alluded to them. The subculture is a lot more complex, and the stereotype of "darkness" being goth rock is probably one of the most anti-goth things there could be. Its clear that most people do not know what the hell they are talking about, and people like to enforce their views that gothic rock has "changed" but it has not. It is still in good ol 1980's. It hit in a brick wall in the 1990's and when it started to meld industrial and metal it ceased to "be" gothic rock and just became music influenced by gothic rock. But that does not make it in the genre.

This article was rediculous, yeah.But why I think they are gothic rock?Because I listen to the music.And when I listen to the 69 eyes I find from the goth style of fields of the nephilim, clan of xymox, sister of mercy ... call me crazy if you want but that's what I feel and what I hear.The discussion for me it's over.

"Well - there are no other sources that states to which genre belong the 69 eyes...in that case I can argue if they are garage rock (hypothetically).As you said the 69 eyes do not play the original gothic rock...but have been influenced and in their sound can be found much from it. Btw what you have written was really good and edifyingly.You're right about the new dark thing and so on..but about the 69 eyes - I still think goth rock should be included." Original gothic rock is pretty much what the gothic rock article is for, so you answered your own question. Again, it covers the bands that started the genre and because it is not a genre that is still seeing innovation or widespread coverage there is little more you can call actual gothic rock than the bands that were there when it started. Most bands today, one way or another, have so much contemporary influence that they lose that "eighties" sound that is characteristic of the genre.

Many modern goth bands (that are in this list of gothic rock artists) do not sound 'eghties' but are still considered as gothic. The 69 eyes have so much gothic in their music!Just listen.I don't see how their later albums are sleaze rock! Xr 1 11:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Most of sources and reviews over the web label the band as gothic rock band. No sources stay for another. Gothic rock will stay, you may add other genres if referenced.Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Reviews, communities etc. are not reliable sources. A reviewer isn't a musicologist. In fact, you only spread the POV of a reviewer. --Ada Kataki (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• You claim EVERY source that counters your opinion as non-reliable. According to you, there's no reliable sources at all for music genres. But Music genres are not defined by "musicologists" they're defined by music journalists. Music journalist reviews is what we use in Wikipedia, reviews is what forms public opinion. Genres're always disputable, and only we have is to represent what is most frequently cited. Wikipedia represents all widespread points of view.

The most widespread point of view on 69 Eyes genre is that they play gothic rock. Not by single reviewer, but by dominant opinion the genre must be mentioned. And for albums, AllmusicGuide, Billboard, Darkside, Discogs, even Last.FM share the common opinion. Who's against? A single editor of Wikipedia?

Please stop your pointless edit war. I respect your point of view, but you did nothing to prove it right, only revert others' edits. Garret Beaumain (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop the add of crap. There is nothing reliable. --Ada Kataki (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, what you do now violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You don't even try to prove anything, you don't discuss, you simply revert everything. Your edits are Original research as they have no sources. Should I appeal to admin? Garret Beaumain (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. Your sources aren't reliable. You only spread another form of POV. --Ada Kataki (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, its not because The 69 Eyes is a tough band to classify that you can dump responsibility for them in the Metal genre. They are not Heavy Metal in any shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.185.118 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The69eyesblacklogo.png

Image:The69eyesblacklogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Says this page needs sources. I went and put them in where I think they needed them, but it would be helpfull if someone says what needs a source. WeLsHy (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

I request for third opinion. User User:Ada Kataki is reverting any edits in The 69 Eyes article and album articles (Blessed Be, Paris Kills, Devils (album)), if Gothic rock genre is mentioned, even when referenced. User claims all cited sources as unreliable, though adds no other sources, which would support different point of view. As for now, there're several Billboard reviews[2], several All Music Guide reviews [3], RockDetector article, Discogs database, and several other sources that cite "gothic rock" genre. And there's, until now, no sources that counter that (and certainly, no sources for "heavy metal" or "dark rock"). I propose the gothic rock genre must be at least mentioned and listed in band's article as well as in album articles. Garret Beaumain (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion It appears Garret Beaumain (talk · contribs)'s sources are likely suitably reliable, and they do indeed refer to the "Gothic Rock" or "Goth Rock" genre. Furthermore, the first hit on a Google search for the phrase "gothic rock" is in fact Wikipedia's own Gothic rock article, and other apparently-reliable sources show up in such a search as well. This, together with the edit summaries visible in Ada Kataki (talk · contribs)'s contribs history, strongly suggests to me that s/he is indeed inappropriately reverting and deleting based only on having a problem with the existence of the genre. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Gothic rock is post punk genre with a strong psychedelic rock influence. The 69 eyes is a sleaze rock/metal group, nothing more. I agree, the band's music has a Gothic rock influence. But The 69 Eyes isn't a Gothic rock group. They're not representative of the genre. I listen to Gothic rock since two decades and the music of The 69 Eyes is very atypical. Don't forget their influences (Elvis Presley, Guns 'n Roses and others). --Ada Kataki (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that's your opinion. What source shares it? A magazine, a journalist, a publicist? Just like Billboard. We cant write an article based only on one's opinion. Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I had to remove it again. Source of rockdetector is being used constantly, which is a self-created and reviewing site. Wikipedia does not condone their use. While I will go as far to say that rockdetector creator is recognize as an "authority" in some fields, if you look through the internet he is mainly a metal/industrial reviewer. Gothic rock is not a part of this area at all. Some say that they take an "influence," and even that is straining it but that is as far as I could conceivably concede to. Some people consider wearing black an "influence" of gothic rock and its very sketchy. But to say they belong to the genre is ridiculous. No mainstream band even plays gothic rock anymore, and any new additions must be substanstially archaic in their style. Off the record, just examine 69 eyes and then look at gothic rock bands. For christ sakes, their associated acts are "HIM" and "Cradle of Filth," both metal bands that play hard music. They associate with people like Bam Margera and their ilk. You can not honestly listen to sex gang children and then 69 eyes and actually think they are in the same room together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Associated acts have nothing to do with genre listing, they are a matter of personal relations (and HIM have nothing to do with metal music). Their goth influence is cited well, whatever is editor's opinion. And I can surely listen to Fields of the Nephilim and then to The 69 Eyes and say they are of the same genre. Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I think the second source given to classify the band as goth rock is sufficient. The Billboard review says "And goth rock doesn't get much more guitar-powered than Finland's the 69 Eyes" - I'm not sure that could be any clearer. The first link given - the review for Devils - actually states that the band is goth punk, and only says that the band "has studied the goth rock masters." I have since found another article at http://www.straight.com/article-69938/finland-s-69-eyes-carries-the-glam-goth-torch, which says "will his glam-goth rock quintet". That's got "goth rock" right in it, so I've removed the other link and added this one in. Normally criteria on Wikipedia ask for two or more independent sources to say something, so I think the two sources here are sufficient.

Having said that, the article is a mess. Eight of the twelve sources are from the band's site, which is sort of a violation of WP:SPS. You should most certainly be able to find a source for "Angels debuted at number 1 in Finland and has since gone gold." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Ada, please stop blindly reverting. There's at least three people on this talk page who believe that the Goth rock genre should be included on the article page, which is far more than the people who want it removed. Please respect WP:CONSENSUS and stop reverting. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to admit this, Ada is right. There is nothing about this band that qualifies them as being in any way Gothic anything. These sources are highly suspect and all of their influences are metal. Which automatically disqualifies them from being Goth. Please read the section in Gothic subculture where Mercer describes neos as only being famous for spectacularly missing the point. Neos, in this case, being anyone who could call 69 Eyes Goth. Goth is not glam. Goth was originally the anti-disco. Glam and disco are pretty much interchangable. Glam Goth is also an oxymoron. Just like "Gothic metal". Doesn't the fact that this article has a history of reverts by Goth and Rivethead editors on the genre section tell you anything? They do not qualify as Goth. They don't make Gothic music of any kind. They're rock, maybe. Metal, probably. And Goth? Not even close. And "genre warriors"? Really? Grow up. If someone reverts an edit to Vanilla Ice's page calling his music neoclassical do you accuse that person of something so insipid as being a "genre warrior"? As editors you are custodians of fact. You're not here to change fact to suit your opinions or taste. Kindly stop calling this band Gothic rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.244.79 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also kindly ask that you stop associating this non-edgy, hardly guitar based band anything heavy metal, except for their short-lived glam metal beginnings.

Pirates of the baltic sea?

Shouldn't this be added? The entire band is apart of this project to bring awareness to the state of the Baltic Sea and do something about it. The past few weeks their mobile blogs have been nothing but the time spent on the boat. Infact they only recently got off the boat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.155.95 (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The 69 Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111132750/http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/ to http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/

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) 10:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The 69 Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207154757/http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/contacts/ to http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/contacts/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109185527/http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/biography/ to http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/biography/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117005123/http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/tour to http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/tour/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117065505/http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/discography/ to http://www.69eyes.com/angelsite/discography/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)