Talk:Relax (song)

Old talk

I deleted some of the legacy portions claiming Frankie.. being an irresistible soundtrack and some stuff like that which sounded like fanboy sayings, and worst of all, very original research-like, stuff that could come back, WITH citations 201.252.52.235 20:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article contained so many inaccuracies as of 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC), that it was like reading about a different record and producer.

Rather than make changes right away, I decided it was better to initiate a discussion, noting that I would be happy to make the necessary factual changes and cut all the ridiculously inaccurate and POV stuff if no one else objected.

No one objected within a week and so, I made the changes. I trust they meet with general approval. Please comment here if you object before making alterations - I would be interested to debate any issues. DaveG12345 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What's so controversial about this song? It's not really addressed in the article. Flannel 21:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions in passing that it was a controversial 80s record - of which there is no doubt. However, it wasn't *just* a controversial record, and there's already a pretty full treatment of most aspects of the "Relax" controversy in the (linked) group article, also attested in the (linked) BBC reference. So, on balance, I'm not personally convinced that the full story needs repeating yet again here, but relevant details can certainly be added if needs be, provided (IMO) they are placed in some sort of context alongside the rest of the article, and provided they don't just end up redundantly reiterating material that already exists in the main group article.--DaveG12345 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not helpful. The article states it was controversial. WHY??? What are the lyrics, and / or what do they imply or say that is controversial? What were aspects of the controversy? What does FGTH say about the controversy? Otherwise, the article is useless. I remember liking the song, but didn't know there was a controversy, and this article helps me out not one bit.

Hey, I gave you an opinion, I ain't here to *be helpful*. Try clicking the link to the band's name (you got a problem with clicking links on this here internet thing or what?), and hey, maybe you'll learn something... And you will apparently have found the contents of the band article for the first time by clicking a link in this article - so not such a "useless" article after all, eh? --DaveG12345 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK - I added some "Controversy"... :-) --DaveG12345 01:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some non-NPOV, i.e "quality product" (matter of opinion). Also Mike Read did not ban the record. He didn't like it, but he did not have the power to take a network wide BBC ban. 152.163.100.6 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats more his version is quite different here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/11/frankie-goes-to-hollywood-relax-banned-mike-read_n_4574908.html and interviewed in the BBC documentary about banned songs Britain's Most Dangerous Songs. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Good changes, but I disagree quite strongly with one of them: if "quality product" is an unacceptable description in the context (this was originally a rising Top Ten hit without any particular hyperbole and a slow-burner for months, which was the point being made), then why does "imaginative marketing" not get trimmed for the same "matter of opinion" reasons? After all, some people may (and certainly did) think the marketing was scurrilous lowest common denominator pandering.

My original point with that sentence was to try to suggest at least two contributing factors to the record's success - the record itself (and the way the group presented it), plus ZTT's input. This is closer to the truth, and a more balanced viewpoint, than the one that now remains in that sentence, which seems to repeat the tired old opinion that marketing and hype did it all. Hope you see my point. Saying it was a good record isn't POV heresy in the context of that sentence - it merely insists instead that its success wasn't ALL hype. Because it really wasn't.

And BTW, the linked BBC article states "DJ Mike Read suddenly banned the record from his mid-morning show". Ban? Refused to play? What's the difference? Sure, he didn't impart a BBC-wide ban all by himself. But where in the article did it ever say that he did? DaveG12345 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section seems a little biased inthe group's favour. Doesn't seem overly impartial to me, the way it praises its music.

I have removed this and some other POV stuff. Regarding the "Legacy" section, think there would be room in the article for putting in context of changing attitudes to sexuality and censorship at the time, but this should be done in an encyclopaedic style, using sources, rather than purple prose musings. --88.110.218.25 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Song Video

Just thought I'd mention that the original video (on which their is very little information by the way) is available here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yPLrXFw76Qg

If it goes into the article or not, I don't know, but I think we've move past the stage of taboo'ing anything gay and this video can be appreciated for the pop legacy that it brought about.

Authors, One September Monday

My copy of ZTTAS 1 has Holly Johnson / Peter Gill / Paul Morley / Mark O'Toole / Paul Rutherford as authors. This is confirmed by GEMA's online royalty database at http://www.gema.de/engl/musicsearch/ 82.43.76.235 12:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Bert

• Added. --DaveG12345 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comments

I'm grading this a "C". The most noticeable issue is that several places sound more like a review in a music magazine than an encyclopedia. -- Beland (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Impact of remixes on chart performance

What was the official rule on remixes being included in a single's chart performance circa 1984? I remember a lot of controversy over the topic in the early 1990s, at a time when chart singles were released in a plethora of different formats in order to boost sales; the powers that be subsequently introduced rules governing the length and types of singles that could count towards a song's chart position. Relax and Two Tribes are two of the earliest, most famous examples of mainstream chart songs that were released in several different versions, and it would be interesting to cover this in a short paragraph in the article. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

First music video

If the first music video is the one I've seen, I wouldn't say that it's "set in a S&M themed gay nightclub". It seems to be a fantasy scene of strange costumed characters congregating in a theatre, with one roman emperor character in one of the box-seats wearing a pseudo-toga and yelling down at the stage while getting shaved, etc. etc. There are some black leather outfits, but it's not remotely like any nightclub or BDSM event that I've ever heard of... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I've now seen the original video, and it definitely did have a gay nightclub theme. If the "laser" video exists, then that means that there must be at least three videos: gay nightclub, theatre, and laser... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere I've read it was meant to symbolise the decadence of/just before the fall of the Roman Empire & the band deliberately made the video be ultra outrageous/offensive because it had been 'banned' by the BBC/Mike Reed.
Also the song wasn't completely banned by the BBC - they performed it on Top Of The Pops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA1KehUMBgs (possible reshown on the BBC2 series Sounds Of The 80s around the mid 90s) & I've seen the Laser beam video or at least clips of it shown on a BBC compilation in the 90s or early 00's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.137.121 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Both videos ("Laser" and "original") are easily viewed on Youtube. I'm pretty sure that the "two" videos being described above are in reality the same one, just with different perspectives and 25 years of memory fade. The "first" video encompasses all the themes described above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any of the videos in the 1980s. My 2010 comment above was made when I had pretty recently watched the "theater" version, and my 2016 comment was made after I watched the "gay nightclub" version yesterday. The "theatre" video and the "gay nightclub" video share some elements, such as the big round guy in the balcony box seats, but he's wearing a toga in the "theatre" version and strips down to a thong in the "gay nightclub" version -- so the two are overall very different... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012

The song is also featured in the 2011 videogame Saints Row: The Third.

Wonderwomanhero (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The V/Vm Test unofficial albums

hmm maybe add something about these plunderphonic incidents? V/Vm got sued for this if I remember correctly

Why?

Why is this article protected? I don't know why 1 song by Frankie should be like this. Edward Roussac (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

Captain Sensible did a cover of Relax in 1984 as well http://www.discogs.com/Captain-Sensible-One-Christmas-Catalogue/release/1580967

the uk 12" version entry on discogs confirms with the writing credits matching the original. plus i've heard the cover http://www.discogs.com/Captain-Sensible-One-Christmas-Catalogue/release/909368

Newmusicmark (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question: What exactly do you want me to change in the article?  TOW  talk  17:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Newer version/remix

There's a modern remix not listed here. Think it's connected to the 2009 Virgin advert, pos UK only. Not sure if commercially released but the video's still getting airplay on (uk) Freesat music channels. Holly Johnson's in the video but the rest is your generic 00's sexy models club video aimed at straight men.( Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Relax (2009 Lockout Remix) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=802b-mwK3a4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.137.121 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Relax (song) → ? – Either Relax, Don't Do It or Relax (Don't Do It). While, per WP:COMMONNAMES, many sources use "Relax" as the title of the song, there are other songs of the same name by different artists. The current title is a method of parenthetical disambiguation; natural disambiguation is encouraged, unless the natural name may be obscure or rarely/lesser known. Everybody precisely knows the phrase, "Relax, don't do it!" There are certain people who think of the phrase as also the song title. The two proposed titles have same words with different punctuations. I prefer the comma over the parentheses because, in this case, it is easier to type than they. Also, "(song)" may not be precise enough. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Google Books shows "song Relax" usually without the next words. Which means Relax (Frankie Goes to Hollywood song) to distinguish from Relax by The Who and the single Relax (Peaches song) on Relax (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably you are using quotation marks, which would influence searchers into assuming things. I used 'song relax frankie hollywood' (1,300 hits). Drop "song", and you receive 2,700 hits. But English Google Books has more hits than the French one. frankie hollywood relax don't do it in English Google Books... Look, the matter is disambiguating this song more than searching for more commonly recognized name. "(Frankie Goes to Hollywood song)" is bigger than "Don't Do It". Frankly, anybody can recognize "Don't Do It" more than the name of the band, right? --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, "song Relax" just picks up results, with or without "..don't do it". Look at the results.

Would support move to Relax (Frankie Goes to Hollywood song) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Search results for 'song relax' have also other different songs of similar name. --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • Comment The title of the song is "Relax". The words "don't do it" only appear in the song's lyrics, they do not appear in the song title. Articles about songs are not named after snippets of the song's lyrics, unless those snippets also form part of the song's proper title. For example, there are 3 well-known 1984/5 songs called "The Power of Love", but it would be incorrect to name their corresponding Wikipedia articles "(That's the) Power of Love", "The Power of Love (a Force from Above)" and "(I'm Ready to Learn About) The Power of Love". Moreover, "Relax" (the song that is the subject of this particular article) also happens to be an all-time top ten best-selling single in the UK, and as such is readily recognized by its actual title, which is simply "Relax". --DaveG12345 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • See below comment I made to Rich Honcho. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (Relax, don't do it!). WP:SONGS Clearly says when disambiguation between two or more different songs is required, disambiguate by the band's name, so Relax (Frankie Goes to Hollywood song) is the correct target. If "Relax, don't do it" is so obvious and natural, then create a redirect, mind you, I don't see how we need it. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:COMMONNAMES, a title may not have to be an official name. "Relax" is an official name. WP:SONGS (a project's guideline) and WP:DABSONG (naming guideline) might imply that only one option is disambiguation by band, artist, or songwriter. However, we can't strictly stick to an official name and just disambiguate it by a method offered by a guideline. --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Why not?--DaveG12345 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I nearly forgot that a most frequently used name may not have to be official. "Relax" is official and commonly used. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I am confused, Commonnames refers to Lady Gaga (not: Stefani Germanotta), (my bold) because we all know her as LG, not SG and that's easy to understand, Stefani is her official name and LG her stage (marketing) name. What that has to do with this nomination is beyond me. However, George now appears to be arguing against his own nomination with, "Relax" is official and commonly used. I assume that George Ho will now withdraw him nomination? BTW, I have no problem with common names being mentioned in the article - with references - which is really what this nom is about. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I crossed out part of my suggestion and would like to let this continue. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • If you were to suggest/support Relax (Frankie Goes to Hollywood song), we could have consensus.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Agreed - with this page (Relax (song)) becoming a re-direct to Relax (the disambiguation page) I guess? --DaveG12345 (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - While there are other songs called "Relax," none of them have articles, so this page shouldn't go anywhere. --GeicoHen (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Geico, no ambiguity for newbies. Even if moved WP:PDAB clause still applying. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Adding back unofficial titles of the song in lede?

I don't see the problem of unofficial titles, and I don't see how it is an undue weight. Actually, I see that adding them back helps readers be informed. And I don't see sources as unreliable. --George Ho (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• It fails undue weight because it fails all 3 bullet-point tests provided under WP:WEIGHT. --DaveG12345 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

How about this: what if I can add deleted sources as external links? --George Ho (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• What for? Those references (which are from books about body-building, children's diets and copywriting) have nothing to do with this song.--DaveG12345 (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see which part of Wikipedia:External links these links violate. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, you are not hearing me, and this is getting a little tendentious, just as your recent proposal to remove the word "The" from the article title "The Lord of the Rings" appears to be a little tendentious. I have already stated that the 3 links you propose (culled from a Google Books search of your favoured version of the article title) are on topics that have nothing to do with this song. They are therefore completely irrelevant to this article as "external links".

I note that your talk page suggests you are taking a wiki-break at the moment, and another editor has recently recommended you do so in your Editor Review. I tend to agree with them, and I will probably add a comment to that effect there later. But meanwhile, I feel this discussion is going nowhere, and I respectfully suggest that you should drop it. --DaveG12345 (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor Review is closed already. --George Ho (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Relax (song) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached.

Opinion: Since the use of the informal names has been challenged by DaveG12345, the "informal names" must not be included in the lede unless a reliable source (RS) can be found which says that those informal names have been used. Note that a RS which is an example of such use is not sufficient for this purpose: it must be a RS which at least describes and, preferably, discusses such informal use. It is the assertion that the song is "unofficially called by some sources" which is the problem here: not the truthfulness or accuracy of that assertion, but the importance of that assertion. This result is because of, in part, the effect of the Verifiability policy, which says (in pertinent part) that any "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material", and in part, the effect of WP:WEIGHT, mentioned above. The fact that this song has been referred to by titles other than its official title is simply not sufficiently important to be mentioned in Wikipedia unless it can be shown that those alternate uses are significant. That, now challenged, cannot be shown either by showing sources of individual instances of such use, even if such instances are from important, highly-respected reliable sources, or by marshaling multiple, even many, instances of such use (which would be improper synthesis). It can only be shown by a RS which indicates that such alternate names have been used in ways, or to the point that, they are significant by at least noting that fact and, preferably, discussing it. Let me close by anticipating a common objection: Pointing out other articles where such alternate names are given is not a sufficient response because every article in Wikipedia stands on its own (and see WP:OTHERSTUFF for a further explanation of why this is not a sufficient objection).

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

George Ho asked at my talk page:

Thanks for the Third Opinion. While I reluctantly agreed to never re-insert the passage again, what about adding sources as External Links? --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't ordinarily supplement an opinion, but I see that I forgot to comment on this aspect. The general principles I announced above apply as well to this idea. External links are part of Wikipedia and while there are some special rules which apply to them, the general rules like verifiability and undue weight apply here as well: Incidental uses of alternate titles are simply not important enough to be mentioned in the article unless they're so common that they're mistaken for the real title of the song. If that's the case, however, then there ought to be some RS which discusses that fact and the proper means of addressing it would be to discuss it in the body of the article, supported by that RS. If that's not the case, then the alternate uses are probably not so important as to deserve being mentioned at all, anywhere or in any form, EL's or otherwise. Alternate titles which are very commonly used, but which are not so common as to qualify to be mentioned in the article would, it seems to me, be acceptable as redirects to the main article, however, but even that would not include every possible variation which anyone has ever used. If I might make an analogy, Donald Rumsfeld was sometimes referred to in print as Donald "Rumsfield", but that fact is not mentioned in the article, either in the body or as an EL, though there is a redirect under that spelling. Why? Because that usage is insignificant, though it was common. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Uses

Although the actual song was not played, references to it were prominently featured in a "Friends" episode, where Rachel and Ross had broken up (again!) and were fighting over a T-shirt that Ross had given Rachel. He took it back and put it on, and even though it was many sizes too small, wore it for the rest of the scene. His exiting words, echoing what was written in large letters on the front of the shirt, were "FRANKIE SAY RELAX!"

Please remove lock

Hey, guys. Please remove lock status to allow to complete some informations about this great song. Thank you. Svenhoefer (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Intro

"...representing simultaneous chart success by a single act, unprecedented since the early 1960s" is very weak phrasing and IMO should be changed to, "representing simultaneous chart success unseen since the early 1960s." Sadsaque (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Song Released on CD Single

Can i request for an edit to the relax(song) page? I just want to put CD on the format released section. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken choo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019

I believe that the mention of T2: Trainspotting and GTA:VC should be furthered by noting:

The song featured on the soundtrack to T2 Trainspotting and also in the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories in the fictional in-game radio station Wave 103. The song was also used in American Horror Story Apocalypse and Black Mirror: Bandersnatch. Magcargo64 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No Zoolander?

The song is a main plot point in that movie and there isn't a single mention in the article. PoppyTheColiflower (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, this is very strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.63.229 (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems you two commenting spurred someone to fix that, cause a few hours after the more recent comment here, someone added a section about Zoolander. Which is good because it was a very important part of the plot of the movie, not just a song that played Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are THREE samples of the song on the page

Does Wikipedia's copyright policy really allow that? I've never seen more than one of two of any song that wasn't public domain or CC-acceptable. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's acceptable if each non-free media is used with critical commentary. Here, however, they are used for decoration. So anyone can remove them. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Thank you, I nuked one of the samples with a comprehensive edit summary pointing back to the talk page (though I was too laggy to section link, trying to recover my Gaian about me from Wayback machine after I inadvertently deleted it after URLs changed). Someone else can WP:BOLDLY remove the other one! Also you're the guy I thanked for adding Zoolander which was disturbingly missing! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! They have been happy on this page since 2006, and suddenly 14 years later someone removes them without giving a real reason.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC) I'm going to restore them as it seems like pointless vandalism to me.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NFCC, WP:NOTVAND and a blatant personal attack is not enough to go against the US fair use policy. Unless you are going to use that file with critical commentary, there is no reason to be there decorating the page. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Who played on the record

In the intro it says "The hit version, produced by Trevor Horn and featuring the band along with other musicians...", but this is contradicted later when it says Holly Johnson was the only band member to perform on the record. Which is correct? MFlet1 (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)