Talk:Wolfsheim (band)

Untitled

Why is the discography a separate article? I would think they could be combined as many other band articles have done. MCalamari 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to combine them, but it's a big article, and I didn't just want to lump it into the existing article. I didn't, because trimming it down and inserting it into the article would require a lot of effort and it basically works as-is. If you feel the need, go ahead. --Eyrian 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could create a table listing the albums, singles, remixes in chronological order and point out that a detailed track by track listing is in the discography article. I do like seeing all the tracks in the other article, but the main article is very small.  :) MCalamari 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I cut down the discography list quite a bit, because I'm creating pages for the various albums. I can combine the articles if you want ~Kaiti~ 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the article itself labels Wolfsheim as a Synth-pop band (fair enough) the listing on the side of the article lists Wolfsheim as Darkwave, to which I'm pretty sure it has no claim. Wight1984 01:38, 11 July 2006 (GMT)

Why do you not feel that Wolfsheim is darkwave? Granted, I would call it a synthpop band as well, but I feel darkwave is a larger "catch-all" term that *might* apply here. Might not too. MCalamari 01:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think describing them as Darkwave would be exactly appropriate personally. Darkwave generally has more Gothic roots. Synthpop would be a better description. JanderVK

They're actually usually categorised as industrial or darkwave, as well as synthpop. ~Kaiti~ 08:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kaiti's reply as well. Many bands are categorized under multiple genres. Wolfsheim is synthpop, but I also think it is appropriate to classify them as darkwave as well. MCalamari 14:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not put Synthpop along with Darkwave than? They're more Synthpop than antyhing. I still disagree about calling them Darkwave though. JanderVK

Yes, I'd think both categories should be included in the band info box for genre style, and I also agree that synthpop is the more appropriate label. But I suspect that outside the US darkwave is more frequently used to describe them. Would you be OK if we used both labels in the info box, but in the text just stress synthpop a bit more? I would. MCalamari 05:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, darkwave is used more often outside the USA. The argument that darkwave has more gothic roots doesn't really hold because they've been featured on numerous gothic compilations... ~Kaiti~ 08:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"There have been allegations that the band's aesthetics deliberately appeal to right-wing audiences."

In this article, there are no allegations "that the band's aesthetics deliberately appeal to right-wing audiences". "Wir Sind Wir" is not a Wolfsheim song. 193.170.52.132 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear where this came from, but Wolfsheim I'm confident that Wolfsheim is not associated with any German right-wing political movements. One could say that Coke-Cola appeals to right-wing consumers, but it such an allegation would have absolutely no merit on a Wikipedia article on the product. There actually are German and American industrial bands were this subject does come up (and in most cases the musicians in these bands tend to personally hold left-wing political views), but Wolfsheim is not even in a genre where these sorts of allegations are common. MCalamari 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the statement appears to be referenced. I can't read German, so I can't make any decisions about reliability or correctness. --Eyrian 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the statement. I had the people in #wikipedia-de read the article and they said that it was an invalid claim. If the article alleges anything, it's about Wir Sind Wir - not a WH song. kaiti-sicle 05:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats right. Wir sind Wir is from Paul van Dyk. The passage about right-wing aesthetics is about another band known as Rammstein. And as we all know, Rammstein is not right-wing at all ;) --Ar-ras 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Vielen dank!

Lol, of course they're not, otherwise I wouldn't like them =P kaiti-sicle 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. I like their music, but the aesthetics are arguably proto-fascist, and that's what the article implies further down. Fossa_?! 14:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In the second part of my statement I was referring to Rammstein o_O

The article referenced refers to "Wir Sind Wir", which is NOT a Wolfsheim song (it's Paul van Dyk featuring Peter Heppner). Therefore it's irrelavent. How are the band's asthetics proto-fascist? What "asthetics" are we talking about?! kaiti-sicle 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad asking, but could you translate the part of the article that makes these allegations? My German isn't good enough to read it... please? kaiti-sicle 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I do?

I wanna bring this article up to something better than stub-class (but wait... it's not REALLY stub class, is it? isn't that usually reserved for...stubs?), but *hangs head in shame* I don't know what to write! I don't know what others consider interesting or important, so could someone give me some pointers on what would be... good to add here? Uh... yeah *is stupid* kaiti-sicle 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A comprehensive, wikified (i.e. links, good paragraphs, sections as appropriate) history is a good place to start, following releases, controversies, tours, etc. There are some very nice discography tables used for some other artists (e.g. Ladytron) which would make the article look very nice. --Eyrian 01:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can dig up. Be a good chance to practice my German anyway =P I'll do the discography now. Thanks for the input ^_^ kaiti-sicle 03:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiatus and Breakup

"Since the release of Casting Shadows, Reinhardt had been trying to move the band ahead with new work, but Heppner wished to pursue a solo career, suspending any following Wolfsheim record until 2009. The dispute peaked when Heppner signed a multi-album solo record deal with Warner Music in December 2005. During this time, Reinhardt was on a retreat from the music business, having composed several pieces but not wanting to perform these with Wolfsheim. Reinhardt filed a lawsuit against Heppner in early 2007 on the grounds of Heppner being in breach of contract and disregarding the basic interests of Wolfsheim with his solo contract. He requested the exclusion of Heppner from the Wolfsheim partnership so that Wolfsheim could continue without him."

Above statement is solely based on a press-release of Reinhardt's lawyers! Heppner denies it in several interviews! So it's controversial, at least. That is why we changed it in the german Wiki into the following:

"Since the release of Casting Shadows Reinhardt was on a retreat from the music business, having composed several pieces but not wanting to perform these with Wolfsheim. Reinhardt filed a lawsuit against Heppner in early 2007. He requested the exclusion of Heppner from the Wolfsheim partnership. In spring 2008, the Hamburg regional court rejected Reinhardt's lawsuit in its entirety, as did the Oberlandesgericht upon Reinhardt's appeal in 2010. Despite this course of events, In many interviews, Heppner has indicated to be interested in continuing with Wolfsheim." --80.171.157.153 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you a translator* or Merkel's lap dog (re: "Now Europe is speaking German")? WE don't have to copy the German Wiki. Tsk tsk...

• I guess not, otherwise you would have used better diction... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.134 (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. You prefer to believe in lies, as long as you believe they are your own? Interesting point of view...! Yeah, you're right! You don't have to copy anything! BTW, the current american Wiki-article about Wolfsheim is an exact copy of the german Wiki four years ago... maybe you should delete it! Because it's not only a copy, it's out of date also! lol!!! --80.171.96.71 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Link

It appears the official link is kaput.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)