Jump to content

Talk:A-ha/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sources

Isn't the sources section a bit too short (it doesn't exactly help with just a link to the the frontpages of internet newspapers)84.202.94.138 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

300 copies is an unlikely number of sales for any major label album. In fact, any album by a Major would SHIP in far greater quantities than this, making sales impossible to track. SOURCE PLEASE.--Tednor 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

300 copies is the correct number. Sources: http://www.darsu.btinternet.co.uk/1984.htm . This is a well known fact in the a-ha community and not something to question. It was not unusual back then that a single were released several times with different arrangment, before it broke the ice, so to speak. The recording industry has changed alot since then and today recordlabel are not really spending time, fostering, nurturing acts. This was also just a single release and not an album release. Back in the 80's it wasthe singles that sold the albums, not the albums that sold the singles like it is today. it's natural that they gave the singles several go's. 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Mortyman
I am fully aware of those facts regarding releases, what is unlikely is that a major label would bother to produce and ship such a small quantity of any release. Promotional copies alone (for dj pools and radio) would be thousands at minimum, with a significant "bleed" between promo and legitimate single sales. I don't care if it's "well known fact in the a-ha community", it needs to be sourced in the article. thanks--Tednor 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Furthermore anything in the Wiki may be questioned at any time, and to state otherwise is to insult both the Wikipedia and the intelligence of its readers, so please phrase more carefully your statements. I admire your devotion to the comprehensiveness of this page, don't get me wrong there.--Tednor 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I was a bit heavy in my comments here. Can't source every info that is here. It would take a whole page of it's own. I don't regard this as important information. When that is said it's not me who has included the info in the infopage. We have different views of what's important and not important info I guess.... Mortyman 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on the trivia issue ( Mortyman )Articles on the net often change url's or dissapear alltogether after a while. Besides most of the articles would be in Norwegian. No point for people who don't speak that language. That however does not mean that these facts are not true. However a-ha is a nOrwegian band, not an American or British, so a lot of info willl be in Norwegian. In general American and English language bio's are not very uppdated.

Trivia section

I agree with Mortyman about the trivia section. The section is a good addition to the main article. Btw, it's well known in Norway that the ripped jeans trend was started by Morten. Turbotape 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I disagree on the trivia and quotes issues. Both the trivias and quotes are well known among fans and music journalists alike in Norway and Europe. There is no reason to be sceptical to this info. You can read the bio " Swing of Things " written with a-ha's concent and includes interviews with the band members, their families and industry people who has worked with a-ha during their career, if you have doubts about this. I also like to know what you regard as nonsense trivia ? The ripped jeans is a fact. I have cut away the info about Morten being offered a role in a James Bond film. As for references. I have made very clear where I have found the info and how to obtain it. Much of the trivia and quotes are taken from English and Norwegian press articles and interviews. Some info are not available on the net ( yes that actually happens ), some info does have url's that does not work anymore and in the case of the Norwegian press, well I guess I could provide url's to info but then you guys need to take a Norwegian language class............. I would also like to point out that a-ha has'nt been touring or been in the spotlight in the USA for 20 years ( except for one small concert in 2005 ). A lot of info about a-ha never reaches American shores and therefore a-ha's info in the US market is not very uppdated. I strongly beleave that the info I have provided does the band and this bio justice.( " Mortyman " ).


I agree with 'the stuart', a lot of this trivia is nonsense which has no place on wikipedia, as is the extended quote section. Some of the trivia is doubtful factually too e.g the ripped jeans fashion trend (Yorkshiresky 13:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

I also agree. If it does indeed stay on the page, then the trivia, as well as the quotes, should at least be backed up with references; the trivia should also be edited to remove the personal opinion e.g. the "it was chaos" line.--Tugboat 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that in my opinion Wikipedia will rise above other sources for such reasons as including Trivia and dynamic writing which other sources are too restrained to offer the public. This is a source for the people, perhaps the people desire trivial information that is indeed factual but in a spirit of fun. Who needs yet another dry as a bone read?? That's my two cents.--Tednor 04:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no reason to remove this section from the bio. All info in the trivia section is accurate. I have added most of it myself. I am adding it back on. ( Mortyman )


  • The very first version of "Take On Me" was called "The Juicyfruit Song", and was recorded during a rehearsal in 1981 by Bridges, Paul Waaktaar-Savoy and Magne Furuholmen's former band.
  • In 1985 pop star Madonna, performed a Latin cover version of "Take On Me" on Saturday Night Live.
  • In the same year in Mexico the opening notes of "Take On Me" was used like a jingle for a TV campaign announcing stockings "Frescannon"
  • During the promotion of a-ha in the USA in the '80s, the American media often compared Morten Harket's looks to the looks of a young Elvis Presley and James Dean.
  • Bunty Bailey was the name of the actress who played the girl reading the comic book in the video "Take on Me". She also dated Morten Harket for a brief period of time.
  • a-ha won 8 MTV awards during one MTV award show in 1986.
  • a-ha is responsible for the "Ripped jeans" fashion trend of 1985. Lead singer Morten Harket was the originator of this trend due to a slight mishap, he mistakenly tore the front of his jeans on a Marshall amplifier while rushing to the stage during a performance. Afterwards, he remarked "Ouch! I just didn't see those." In future performances he used razor blades to achieve the same effect.
  • Michael Jackson and Sophia Loren were at a-ha's 1986 concert in Los Angeles.
  • Debbie Gibson, US singer attended an a-ha concert in 1986, when she was 16. She later met a-ha again in 1991.
  • Morten Harket was offered a role as a villain's henchman in the James Bond movie The Living Daylights. However he declined, due to lack of time and because the producers only wanted him in the movie because of his popularity and not his acting skills. a-ha wrote and performed the title song for the movie. However, he did take up an acting role, as the character of Christoffer in the two Norwegian Kamilla and Tyven movies made in the late 80s.
  • In 1989 a-ha played in Rio de Janeiro at the Praça da Apoteose (the place where the Rio carnaval takes place annually). The organizers expected an audience of 40,000; however 100,000 showed up — it was chaos.
  • On the tour of South America in 1991, a-ha played for over 3 million people in under a month and 25 shows, in addition to their world record performance at the Maracanã stadium in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • In 1991 a-ha set a Guinness Book World Record by playing for the largest paying audience in the world: 198,000 people.
  • East of the Sun and West of the Moon is the name of a Norwegian folk tale.
  • The song "Angel In The Snow" was actually written by Paul for his wife Lauren, in 1991, when they got married.
  • An a-ha poster can be seen on the wall during the Seinfeld episode "The Pez Dispenser", which was aired in 1992.
  • Songs by a-ha have been included as background music in episodes of popular TV series, such as Baywatch, Melrose Place, South Park, Smallville and The Simpsons, as well as movies such as One Night at McCool's, Grosse Pointe Blank and Corky Romano and Beavis and Butthead.
  • Reel Big Fish remade the song "Take On Me" in 1998 for the BASEketball soundtrack.
  • In 1999 Paul Waaktaar-Savoy received an award: a-ha have been played 2,000,000 times on US radio-stations.
  • J-Pop singer Utada Hikaru performed "Take on Me" in Bohemian Summer 2000.
  • a-ha tours with a backing band. The current band includes the drummer Per Lindvall, who used to play drums in ABBA's backing band, and has toured with a-ha since 2000.
  • In 2005, the video for "Take On Me" was parodied in "Breaking Out Is Hard to Do," an episode of the Family Guy cartoon sitcom. The sequence begins when Chris is pulled into the pencil-sketched world of the video by a man resembling Morten Harket. The animation in the scene is extensively patterned after that of the "Take On Me" video, but with Chris instead of "The Girl".
  • In June 1991, The last episode of "Twin Peaks" (directed by David Lynch) is aired for the first time. As a big Lynch fan, Pål sent him a tape containing 3-5 songs, amongst them "Sycamore Leaves", in the hope that he might sometime direct an a-ha video. Lynch was too busy with "Twin Peaks" to work with a-ha. Never-the-less Lynch rips off the song "Sycamore Leaves" in this last episode (slightly changed, but with the same structure and called "Sycamore Trees") but doesn't credit Pål.
  • In December 2005, the flash cartoon series Weebl and Bob featured a reference to the "Take on Me" video clip.
  • According to Pål in the book, The Swing of Things, the official a-ha biography, whilst recording in Prince's Paisley Park studios, Mags scrawled the word 'Prince' in felt pen on the childs urinal in the men's loo, referring to Prince's incredibly small frame. Apparently it was removed "impressively fast"!!
  • a-ha has performed at two Nobel Peace Prize concerts, the most prestigious awardshow in the world. a-ha performed in 1998 and 2001. (Morten Harket has also performed solo once.) The 1998 performance was a-ha's comeback into the world of music.

Can anyone put more information on the musicians themselves, like who played which instruments?

Surely by the Wikipedia definition of New Wave (music), a-ha's genre is not best defined as a New Wave? swalk 12:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think one of U2's recent songs sounds a lot a lot like "The Sun Always Shine on TV". I don't remember which. The background sounds just like it, but the lyrics are different.

The song is Beautiful Day. ( Mortyman )


The "ripped jeans" trivia should probably be modified, to make it clear that Morten only claims to have started the trend, not that he actually did. Punk Rock bands had been wearing ripped jeans nearly a decade (ref: Ramones 1976 album cover) before Morten claims to have discovered them (1985).

My suggested change: "a-ha lead singer Morten Harket claims to be responsible for the '80s "ripped jeans" fashion trend. He states that he was rushing to the stage in a 1985 performance where he ran past an amplifier and accidentally tore his jeans on the edge. However, it should be noted that Ripped Jeans were being worn onstage by Punk Rock bands nearly a decade earlier, and the fashion trend may have actually begun there." ( Cobalt )

I liked the trivia section too, although whether Morten Harket is personally responsible for reviving the ripped jeans trend is obviously a subjective matter.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is worthy of either trivia or should be in the main article somewhere, but I recall that a-ha used black gaffer tape to cover up the "Yam" part of the name "Yamaha" on the back of the DX7 synths they used, leaving just the "aha" as an obvious reference to their unhyphened name. (Timnicebutt (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

Corrected entries

Release dates for "East of the Sun, West of the Moon" and "Memorial Beach", under the First Phase and Discography sections were exchanged. I have corrected this issue. Novaisel 14:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)NovaiselNovaisel 14:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not One Hit Wonders!

Even though Take On Me was rated #8 on VH1's One Hit Wonder Chart. I have removed a-ha from being a One Hit Wonder down to the fact that a one hit wonder is actually when an artist is only known for one hit. Considering that a-ha had 8 top ten hits in the UK alone between 1985 & 1988 one of them being the #1 single The Sun Always Shines On T.V. their first three albums also holds the record for being the only artist to have three consecutive #2 albums...etc...etc...all chart hits can be seen on the a-ha discography section as well as the fact that in 2006 a-ha still continue to make records. anyone that knows anything about a-ha knows that this statement is incorrect and therefore should not be included.

NendoShisu 09:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image replacement

The current image is of low quality - a far-away stage shot with lots of fans' arms in the way. -- Beland 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CONSIDER IT...................REPLACED!!!!

NendoShisu 13:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

a-ha and it's related articles sucks. Someone needs to fix them. I've fixed their discography. And they haven't sold 3 million in the UK. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Please check your talk page. For anyone else stumbling across this and doubting my edits, check the BPI page and search for title ("Hunting High and Low"), not artist. That album went triple platinum in the UK. However, triple platinum in the UK is only 900,000. Triple platinum in the U.S. is three million. Put another way, SINGLE platinum in the U.S. is actually one hundred thousand more than TRIPLE platinum in the UK. I wasn't the person who claimed 3 million in the UK, but I am the person who edited the pages today. If you combine all their album sales, however, they're probably near or at 3 million. That's speculation on my part based on the certifications I can cite (which total about 2 million UK units sold) and the chartings of their other albums there; we can't put speculation in the article, but perhaps the citation is out there...have faith, and you'll find it! In the meantime, please put my edits back once you've confirmed them for yourself. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Abrazame (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Pictures

Can someone edit the pictures. The current ones is'nt really good. The top one basically shows the crowd at a concert, not a-ha themselves. The second one shows a-ha and their entire backingband. It should be just a-ha.Mortyman (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert Murga?

I have reason to doubt that there really is a band member named Gilbert Murga. I'm putting a [citation needed] on it. Someone who knows about a-ha may want to look into this. CosineKitty (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 100% false. - Aphasia83 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Lifelines

There is no mention of the Lifelines album in the After hiatus (1998-present) section of the bio. The bio goes from Minor Earth Major Sky album and right to the live album. Lifelines is missing. Can someone write a little about that album too ? Mortyman (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide total sales figures seem unrealistic, and are uncited

There have been wildly varying, and wildly overestimated sales claims added and reverted with dizzying frequency in recent months. I've seen the link to the figure of 20 million units sold by the time of their 1994 hiatus. The '84-'94 period saw the band's greatest worldwide success. While I can't personally attest to the citability of the article in question, I find it reasonable to assume that figure was correct, unless another editor can support a claim it does not meet citability requirements or can cite a conflicting figure.

To provide what I hope is a helpful example from the standpoint of hard numbers and logic: The U.S. is by far the world's largest music market, the UK is the second-largest. For the Hunting High and Low album, U.S. Platinum is 1,000,000; UK Triple-Platinum is 900,000. "Take on Me" was Gold in the U.S., despite RIAA.com not listing it as such, which was 1,000,000; that single and "The Sun Always Shines on T.V." were both Gold in the UK, which is 400,000 each. Those figures add up to a total of 3,700,000. Generously supposing "The Sun..." sold as much in the U.S. (at #20) as it did in the UK (at #1), and accounting for 12" sales and residual midline sales above the certification levels, it is reasonable (though uncitable) to project that the band sold over 4.5 million copies of that one album and two singles in the U.S. and the UK alone by 1994. That's impressive, but look at the other side of the equation: that's almost 25% of the total sales claimed in the aforementioned article. Shockingly, the band has not had a major hit in the U.S. since. All those other countries' chart peaks for those releases, and all the band's other releases worldwide through 1994, therefore, would have sold 15 to 16 million units during the band's first, most prolific, and most successful ten years. This list [1] will help explain how other countries' certifications line up with units sold.

It is unreasonable to assume, from the standpoints of logic and reason, of interpretation of chart figures, and of editorial responsibility for an encyclopedia, that the band has sold another 20 million units in the fourteen years or so since, much less the 60 million-plus that has often been claimed here, for a total of 83 million units. 83 million what? 83 million where? Recent chart and sales figures are easier to track down and cite than those from the '80s and '90s, and yet a-ha's recent chart peaks and sales certifications (as they appear in the discography, at any rate) simply don't support the claim. (Perhaps this is why people have also been inflating the chart peaks.) Forty million total sales since 1984 is certainly conceivable, but it has certainly been uncited, and as such none of these additional claims should remain in the group's article or their discography.

Did people misread the claims they have been adding? Perhaps a-ha earned 83 million dollars (or pounds, Euros or Krone) in royalties over the course of their career? Perhaps when digital downloads are tracked as individual song sales instead of albums or multi-track singles, they have sold 63 million individual tracks since regrouping? Any of that would be easy for me to believe—though, again, would need a valid citation and a qualifier to appear in these articles.

For the record, I love a lot of their stuff, and I've purchased most of the band's albums and remixes since they first debuted. I recently helped to track down additional UK sales certifications, and pressed for their inclusion when they were removed from the article due to the BPI site's poor search engine. I would love it if the band, and many other of my favorites, sold 80 million units. From this point on, however, it is my judgement that editors should assume any "total sales" figure (other than the 20 million by 1994) is vandalism, unless the claim is backed up by a valid citation with footnote. To fellow a-ha fans: please contribute by searching for citable references of certifications and sales figures, instead of re-adding these familiar but unsupported total sales figures to the article. For example, with all those Norwegian #1s, there must be a great deal of gold and platinum certifications a-ha earned in their home country, not to mention Austria and other countries, which would help to complete the article. Abrazame (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a-ha sold 600 000 of Stay On These Roads in Brazil alone. You have to remember that a-ha has sold alot of albums / singles in South America: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/Mortyman/1artigo-veja89.jpg ( Source Warner)
The other thing is that, when poeple state 75 - 80 million, that include singles, Japanese special versions, local releases from Brazil and Argentina, Ep's etc and not just the original studio albums.
20 million is ridiculosly low and is totally unacceptable to add to the article. And why is'nt this french site acceptable as a source: http://www.aha-fr.com/discographie.php  ?
Mortyman (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the list of certification from various countries.... it should be taken with a pinch of salt. The way Brazil certifies sales today is not the same as they certified sales in the 80 beginning of the 90's. Theyy made changes sometimes during the 90's to have they certified records. Stay On These Roads album sold 600 000 in Brazil and a-ha received Platinum back then. However if they had gotten the certification today they would have received Diamond. :Mortyman (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to consider, is that even thoguh let's say Hunting High and Low was released in 1985, it has sold also after that. No one here is gonna tell me that the album has'nt sold in the USA after it's got its innitial certification in 85 / 86. So the 1 million number should be taken with a pinch of salt. Same with the UK and all other countries. Old albums continue to sell, as new albums are released. To base discography on the innitial certifications the got amny, many years ago is silly.
Their first 3 albums has also been released as a 3 pack. That is also something to take into consideration.
Also much of the sales go through such channels as Amazon and Play. does these sales get registered ?
Mortyman (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Mortyman, I am continually impressed at how warmly South American fans embrace great artists from around the world, often long after North American fans have let them go. You might notice I just added a Brazilian certification other editors had missed in their research, for a title exclusive to Brazil.
You are correct that many countries have made changes to their certification levels. It's very confusing, and neither their own sites nor Wiki's articles are very helpful at determining which levels were in effect during which periods. It isn't up to fans or Wiki editors, however, to upgrade certifications. As I understand it, a few artists (I seem to recall Mariah Carey being one) received such upgraded certifications by the RIAA, but soon afterward they made it their policy not to upgrade certifications as sales requirements change. Other nations' certifications may be handled differently. Certifications used to be for units shipped, and are now for units actually sold. The reason for this is the record companies were cheating, shipping more copies than they expected to sell, so they could promote their artists with the Gold status they hadn't actually earned, as even then many people confused quantity, or popularity, with worth. They would receive tens or even hundreds of thousands back in returns, and destroy them, writing it off as a business expense and sometimes taking the cost up front out of artist profits.
The process for certification in the U.S. during a-ha's time was that a record label must pay to submit each individual record and single to an independent audit process. The auditor certifies a certain number of units sold, and if it reaches the threshold, the label presents the audit to the RIAA and pays them a processing fee to make the certification. Then the label and/or artist (and/or their manager) pay to have a vendor make up however many copies of framed record/CD awards they want. The costs are not terribly high, but it keeps certain titles from being certified despite reaching a threshold. When an artist leaves a label, that label has less incentive to invest in audits, especially as sometimes the audit comes back under the threshold and it was a waste of money. Record labels can be very stingy!
To the case of ABPD in particular, the site claims that the awards listed were certified from 1990 onward. Did they not exist prior to 1990? Do their certifications not include sales prior to 1990? Is it because, prior to 1990, there was no official body to audit sales, and because of the aforementioned history they don't trust record label claims? The Veja magazine clipping you point to cites WEA (the record label) as their source. If ABPD doesn't trust WEA, should Wiki? It does, however, answer your question as to why 600,000 might actually have been sold in Brazil and yet the Brazilian certification is for less than that. (Some sites are simply incomplete, however, and I know I've caught several omissions on RIAA.com and Billboard.com.)
As to the French site, here is what it states:
"Attention : Les données communiquées sur aha-fr.com, le sont à titre indicatif et sont basées sur des estimations. Certains de ces chiffres ont été confirmés par la maison de disque WEA Music." Translated, that's basically "Caution: The data communicated on aha-fr.com, are as an indication and are based on estimates. Some of these figures were confirmed by the house of disc WEA Music."
Some of the figures were confirmed by the label. Who made these estimates? The band's management? Fans and associates running the site? People who have an incentive to promote a band, yet don't have the authority to request (or the willingness to pay for) actual sales audits, are unofficial and uncitable. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying they've basically told us many of these are uncitable, "ballpark" figures, and that, to use your phrase, we should take them with a pinch of salt. You're not supposed to take specific numerical information in an encyclopedia with a pinch of salt, you're supposed to take it at face value, and that's why this information doesn't belong in Wikipedia, stated as if it were a certifiable fact.
Three-paks are counted, and Amazon sales count. (I don't believe the sale of used CDs count, however, and I don't believe eBay sales count.) I recognize that older albums continue to sell. So do some record companies, and when they feel there's an incentive, they put those records up for certification. You may notice at BPI, Hunting High and Low didn't get certified Triple Platinum until 1992. I recognize that total sales include Japanese releases, South American releases, and EPs; it seems the French site is including those, the Japanese remix compilations, the Brazilian discs, all the albums, all the singles, and even their above-and-beyond estimate is in the 60-70 million range, 20 million or so less than some claims being added here. If we're to believe the French site, then where do the 80 and 83 million claims come from, and what does all this variety indicate about trusting any of these figures?
Personally, I would be quite impressed but not absolutely shocked if the total sales figure for a-ha was in the 60 million range. I would be a lousy editor if I placed that fan-site figure in an encyclopedia, however, based on the fact that they themselves concede the figures are unofficial.
You write "To base discography on the innitial certifications the got amny, many years ago is silly." Of course titles which have remained in print have continued to sell, at some diminished level, in the years since their last certifications. But the bottom line is this: it's not up to fans or other editors at Wiki to guess, to estimate, to project, or to print the speculations of others. If a-ha's label, WEA, were to believe those certifications did not reflect current echelons, it's up to them to go through the process I outlined above, or whatever various regional processes, in order to update those certifications. Once they did, there would be some official statement, such as a press release, and likely an article in the national music journal (such as Billboard in the U.S.), as the very point of certifications is that they are a promotional tool. What they are not is a specific sales tally. Similarly, a discography is a listing of the releases an artist has produced. At Wikipedia, most discographies include chart peaks and sales certifications as a matter of course, but don't be misled to believe the purpose of a discography is to provide a running tally of total sales, particularly one that is unofficial. Abrazame (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE First chart positions, most of them get deleted thats why a-has early stuff has got more chart positions and two im adding the canadian chart positions now and second of they have sold 80 million please try to find a source instead on their homepage. Move on find a new source, it aint hard. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Universal Music's EPK on a-ha (The Story Of Success) gives total record sales as 70 million.(--Fremmed (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

If the EPK (electronic press kit) is officially posted online, please copy the URL and paste it here. Abrazame (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I could not find the URL but if you go to www.youtube.com and enter: a-ha Foot of The Mountain EPK english it will come up. It states: Total sales 70 million. Hope this helps.(--Fremmed (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

The Living Daylights Soundtrack

Should sales of the soundtrack including a-ha's contribution here be added to the discography ?

How does this work ?

a-ha has also had their songs feautured on other soundtracks and compilations. Mortyman (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes, absolutely a soundtrack section would be great for the discography. A separate table would be the way to go, located after the albums and EPs. You could cut-and-paste one of the other tables already in the discography, substituting the new titles and chart positions for those already there, in chronological order.
Most major pop stars have had a number of their major and minor hits included on anywhere from dozens to hundreds of hits compilations around the world, as well as assorted promotional albums, and unless there is something notable about the hits compilation these are not formally considered a part of the artist's discography. By notable I mean you could include it if the artist's contribution was a previously unreleased song, which is sometimes the case when the compilation is a tribute to another artist, or for a charity. And of course all compilations that are made up entirely of that artist's songs are notable parts of their discography. These examples would belong in a separate table, apart from their studio albums.
It might be reasonable to mention a compilation which includes a previously released hit if the compilation itself was successful enough to have received a sales certification or topped a national albums chart, even though this isn't technically a part of the artist's discography. This example would be best handled in the text of the song page article. An entirely made-up example, at the end of the "Take on Me" article, could read something like: "Take on Me" appeared on the hits compilation Now 57! (Capitol Records, 1985), which peaked at #2 on the UK albums chart in January 1986 and was certified Gold by the BPI. You would reference the album for the song's inclusion, and reference the certification and the chart peak. This link [2] will help you understand the editing processes here, but in a nutshell for web citations, you place your cursor immediately after the end of the text to be referenced, then scroll down the editing page frame to the section reading "Wiki markup:" and click "<ref></ref>". This will place that code in the text of the edit window where your cursor was, with the cursor in the center. You then cut-and-paste the URL of the reference and place it in the center. If there is already a reference list at the bottom of the page, this will now appear there, in numerical order. If not, you must place the cursor below the end of the text in the edit window (after any charts and tables which appear in the article but before category codes which do not appear in the article), and then click on "{{Reflist}}" in the "Wiki markup" section. This will insert the footnote.) Abrazame (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


To answear your question, yes look at the Pearl Jam discography or Soundgarden discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone could add these soundtracks to the discography, as I'm not the best at it...:

  • James Bond - The Living Daylights - Includes the theme song written and composed by a-ha
  • Corky Romano Soundtrack - Includes " Take On Me " by a-ha
  • One Night at McCool's [SOUNDTRACK] ( 2001 ) - Includes the song " Velvet " by a-ha
  • Grosse Pointe Blank (Volume 2) (1997 Film) [SOUNDTRACK] - includes the song " Take On Me " by a-ha

Unfortunetly I don't have any chart information on these. Mortyman (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This compilation for this cause includes John Lennon's " #9 Dream " performed by a-ha

The cover has not been released anywhere else.

Should also proabably be added. Mortyman (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Covers

a-ha's song has been covered by many artists. Should these also be added to the Discography ? Mortyman (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Covers do not belong in an artist's discography, as they are not the artist's work. You can mention notable covers on the individual song pages. Wiki-link artists who have their own page and mention the year the cover was released, album it appears on, when applicable, and you might mention the style if it differs wildly from what would be expected. You might mention the nationality of the artist when it's not a universally known artist. But be brief. Mention the covers in chronological order. If the cover was a single by a particularly notable artist, and/or if it charted someplace, give more information than you do for those less significant, and cite any charting data. Some particularly notable covers (like A1's cover of "Take on Me", for example) deserve their own infobox and heading within the article, and possibly a brief mention in the article's first paragraph or two.
A good rule of thumb is don't put more about the cover(s) (information-wise and space-wise) than the article has about the original version, unless the cover is equally or more significant than the earlier version(s).
If another editor doesn't get to it first, I'll format the soundtrack/compilation data by the weekend. (If another editor has chart positions, weigh in and let us know.) Abrazame (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No covers. They're not by the artist but soundtracks is okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New album

The new a-ha album is being produced by Mark Saunders (Depeche Mode, The Cure) in New York. Polydor have it listed on their proposals sheet for February 2009.

On a separate note, a-ha were NEVER called A-Men (!!!!!) They DID, however, CONSIDER a-hem briefly. Someone should update the Wiki page on a-ha with this correct info as it's severely lacking truth and punch in several areas.

Just in case you're wondering how I know all this then it's because I'm currently writing a book on a-ha and have all the info at my fingertips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melancholic Chevalier (talk • contribs) 12:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Should it always be "a-ha"

I do some music article editing, amoung other things, and after coming across this situation before, I'm curious...aside from the first mention, isn't WP Style to typical revert to "A-ha" for the rest of the article (for ease of reading). Whatever the case, I think even when it starts a sentence it should be "A-ha". -- TRTX T / C 21:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TRADEMARK#Trademarks_that_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter]] -- TRTX T / C 21:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion it should always be a-ha in low letters. It has basically become a trademark of a-ha and it's very rarely messed with oficially. Another trademark of the group is that whenever they pose for official pictures, the 3 band members look in different directions... Mortyman (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good question. It does look a bit wrong to have a lower case at the beginning of a sentence. It's a bit like the question of whether eBay should be spelt Ebay if it's at the start of a sentence (or even EBay which looks like a typo). The distinction in the case of the band a-ha perhaps has particular significance since it would otherwise tend to be spelt with a capital when used as an interjection. Though official merchandise normally has a-ha in lower case letters, I've seen A-HA printed on concert tickets, and it looks somewhat ridiculous. It's usual to see A-ha listed in music charts etc. Interesting point about the photos too, Mortyman. I always thought there was something a bit odd about the Headlines And Deadlines sleeve picture and I've just realised what it is: they're standing together and all looking at the camera. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"A-ha" should always be capitalized at the beginning of sentences. We don't throw out the normal rules of English on the whims of a pop group. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOSTM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter is specific about this: Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized. Nelson58 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOSTM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter is specific about this: Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized. Agree entirely. It's just a sales/marketing gimmick anyway, and the rules are the rules. ALL references need to be edited to "A-ha", with a sentence saying they are usually marketed as all lowercase "a-ha" to explain this. I'm doing it now! Jimthing (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So I dub thee a vandal. -- Stormwatch (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Foot Of The Mountain album: release date?

The release date for this album is listed as 13th June (I think it was previously changed from 19th June?) so I changed it to past tense, but the album release date is listed on Amazon and eBay as 13th July. The album doesn't seem to be in the shops yet either (at least not the ones near me), though it is apparently available from some European countries now on eBay. Can someone please clarify? What is the correct release date for UK and any other countries for which this information is known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contains Mild Peril (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Various releasedates for various countries

Germany June 12 Norway June 15 Denmark June 15 Netherlands 19 june Switzerland 19 June Poland 10 July UK is July 13 Italy July 17

Please note that several dates has been pushed back and also pushed forward several times. However this is how it currently looks. Also note that this is the physical album release. Not download or single release dates. The album is available for download at the official a-ha site for coutries outside Europe. The album is also available for download at Itunes etc. Mortyman (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

a-ha album tracklist additions

Just wanted to inquire if someone more familiar with the lastest news about the band can confirm if there has been any news regarding reissues of the a-ha albums featuring additional bonus tracks. Two IP addresses (perhaps the same user?) added bonus tracks to nearly every a-ha album. I've reverted them for reasons enumerated at User talk:91.66.43.158. Editors interested in a-ha might want to keep an eye out on the album articles for future edits if this is vandalism, or to craft textual mentions and properly format the bonus tracks so as to differentiate them from the historical fact of the original tracklists if there is legitimate news confirming imminent re-release. If this is vandalism, I hope it doesn't get anybody's hopes up; it would sure be fun to hear any possible recordings from back in the day that didn't make the original cut for the albums, if that's what these additions turn out to be. Abrazame (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Years active: "1982-2010" or "1982-1994, 1998-2010"

They weren't active as a band between 1994 and 1998, but there is one (or more) anonymous person(s) that keep editing this to "1982-2010", even though it's not right. What do other people here think about this? Are1981 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it keeps getting reverted, but I'd go with "1982-1994, 1998-2010". The hiatus was deliberate and was announced at the time, as was their reunion - it's not as though they just had an unexplained period of inactivity as a band. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales relative to Roxette

Anyone got any thoughts on this edit?

The article on Roxette says that they have sold "an estimated 60 million records worldwide" whereas the article on a-ha says they have sold "over 35 million albums worldwide plus more than 25 million singles" i.e. over 60 million, but we don't know how much over 60 million. It looks like a-ha may have sold more but we can't be sure.

Then again, if I look at a translation] of a source for the statement about Roxette, it says "With Roxette Per Gessle sold over 60 million albums" which implies that, when the singles are taken into account, Roxette will come out on top.

I tried to get the other source for the statement on the Roxette page translated but Google Translate didn't like it. I also can't access a-ha.com from my current location. I also note that there is some discussion of the number of sales at Talk:Roxette.

So it looks like this edit is correct and the Roxette article is understaing their success, but I can't be sure. Ideally we would find a reliable source that had the sales of both bands in it so that we know that we are comparing like with like.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think A-ha are fourth behind Ace of Base, which is confirmed by Allehanda which says 30 million albums and Sveriges Television which says 35 million records. I'm certain that skivor means records as I've seen a number of articles which use album to mean albums. If you translate the sentence "Med Roxette sålde Per Gessle drygt 60 miljoner skivor" on its own it does say records. Mattg82 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Further to that an English source (Daily Mail) says 32m records. Mattg82 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A-ha are not early beginners; therefore, one could look at their certifications for all the markets which offer certification-databases to determine and see whether the claimed figures for them are true. And based on A-ha's certifications, 32 million in record sales claimed by Daily Mail seems just about right. A-ha's success seems less plausible than that of Roxette's or even Ace of Base's. These here are all the certifications I see for A-ha:

Note that Ace of Base have achieved similar success as A-ha in Germany, UK and France but have done much better than A-ha in the US with over 13 million in certified sales. I'm going to agree that A-ha's overall sales are lower than Ace of Base's. Also, note that A-ha have not collected a single certification in their neighboring markets, Finland and Sweden .--Harout72 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys. This is a similar thing to "best-selling female artist of all time" in between Carey, Dion and Madonna. I think it would be best to just call them each one of the best-selling, or else we are in for a long back and forth, which will only get challenged again in the future. How does that sound?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

reason for final split?

Please, tell us why the band has split finally! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.87.9 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Stylized renditions

Extended content

Please consider the discussion and append your regards to the following questions:

  1. Is it ever appropriate to title an article about a band according to non-standard convention? If so under what circumstances? If not briefly state why?
  2. When would it be appropriate to show the "stylized" rendition prominently in the lead as shown in Kesha?
  3. Is the policy governing article titles for band names adequate or should it be clarified further?

Thank you for considering this content discussion. My76Strat (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • My76Strat, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): Wikipedia uses standard English capitalization for proper nouns regardless of the preferences of trademark holders. It is for the same reason that we don't print band names in all-caps even though they may appear this way on pretty much everything the band has ever released (eg. METALLICA). You should not take it upon yourself to move numerous articles without first establishing a consensus that this is appropriate. The topic has been discussed many times at Talk:Blink-182 and consensus to follow the Manual of Style and standard capitalization rules has always won out. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    Very well, thank you. - My76Strat (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    I suppose when you figure out why k.d. lang is an appropriate article title you will also know why blink-182 should be. My76Strat (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    It's not. That article title goes against our manual of style and the standard rules of English and should be changed. Think of the many thousands of musical artists, product brands, movie/book/album titles, etc. that are branded either in all-caps or all-lowercase. Do we then type them as all-caps or all-lowercase on Wikipedia? No, because this is an encyclopedia, not a branding guide. "k.d. lang" is no more of an appropriate article title than "METALLICA" would be, or "daria", or "HARRY POTTER and the Philosopher's Stone". --IllaZilla (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with your last reverts ([19], [20], and [21]) where I showed the stylized rendition. Perhaps you have an explanation. I was following the examples set in other articles including an FA. What gives this time? My76Strat (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    As I said in my edit summary, typing in all-caps or all-lowercase is not a stylization. Stylization involves the alteration of normal characters or word structures, not merely laying on/off the shift key. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    You are assuming things not stated, except by you, regarding the edits. And you are reacting as if no other editor considers; or understands policy. It is not the mere graphical presentation, aesthetics of the album cover, that prompt the designation as "stylized". However when you consider the album's representation, the occurrences in 100's of sources where the brand is rendered this way, and often, (as is the case with blink-182), specific sources where the proprietor has declared the style election. These facts, conjoined, are the litmus; for making the important declaration of "artistic intent".

    I spent a great deal of yesterday reading WP:MOS and several previous discussions. While your position regarding encyclopedic prose v. branding is fair; worthy of consideration! It does not constitute an overriding authority to regulate contributions solely to your expectations. Of the hundreds of independent sources, I have compiled the following list:

    *herman de vries; **bis; ****spinART; **of Montreal; *a-ha; **:wumpscut:; **(həd) p.e.; ***Yellow mY skYcaptain; **Sunn O))); **Fenix*TX; **blink-182; **matchbox twenty; **HIM; **HiM; **kent; ***far; ***Isn't Anything; (album shows the **my bloody valentine brand); **BrokeNCYDE; *k.d. lang; **the pillows; *INOJ; ***Definitely Maybe (album shows the **oasis brand); ***aMotion, and ***eMOTIVe (albums show the **a perfect circle brand); and the ***In Utero article, an FA, that shows track #11 as: "tourette's". (* = People), (** = Ensembles), (*** = Albums), (**** = Companies)

    All of these examples were clued to my attention by the preponderance of sources; which told the underlying story of these avante garde artists who dare to break convention; declaring themselves in a non-standard manner. You should also know that several independent manuals of style make the following declaration: "In the case where an artist uses a non-standard capitalization with an artistic intent, the original capitalization used by the artist should be preserved." They go on to give the following: "Examples include [k.d. lang (artist)], [Yellow mY skYcaptain (release)], and ["tourette's"] - track #11 on the release In Utero. (with their own biographical links; not mirrors of Wikipedia) You should note the manner and appearance of these articles in Wikipedia. And also note that where the articles are not titled according to the brand, a mention is made regarding the "stylized" artistic rendition.

    I recommend you improve upon your assumptions and constrain your overly diligent manner of forcing your style preferences. Even your manner of reverting fails to acknowledge good faith! This form of disregard seeds, and then waters negative sentiments. I prefer to discuss collaborations, and am willing to pursue dispute resolution where discussion fails. I will reinstate the firmly established "stylized" examples in both articles. This is not vandalism and if you are not satisfied you can request additional sources, or pursue a valid consensus; through discussion. My76Strat (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

    I find it somewhat humorous that almost no one would agree with typesetting in all-caps the titles/names of the 1,000s of artists, albums, books, films, etc. that appear in all-caps on their covers and artwork, yet when it's all-lowercase or wonky capitalization editors get all in a twist about "aesthetics", "graphical representation", and "artistic intent". This is an encyclopedia: We are typing sentences in English and following the rules of English typography. How a music artist, or any other entity, chooses to brand themselves in logos and artwork does not have a bearing on the rules of typography. For every example you care to name, there are dozens more in which standard capitalization is used on Wikipedia and in the majority of sources even though it isn't in the brand: eg. Adidas (not adidas), Fresh & Easy (not fresh & easy), Friends (not F•R•I•E•N•D•S), etc. etc. Heck, most of the examples you cited above are typeset on Wikipedia according to standard English. We don't need to make special note of every non-standard branding in lead sentences; It's superfluous and, in the vast majority of cases, not noteworthy or encyclopedic. By your logic almost every article would have to begin with "<Artist Name> (stylized as <artist name>)", eg. "Descendents (stylized as DESCENDENTS)", "Paramore (stylized as paramore)", etc. It's totally superfluous and unimportant to an understanding of the subject, especially when placed prominently in the lead sentence. Your insistence on typesetting names and titles as they appear in brands is silly: On Neighborhoods Blink-182's name is in all-caps, with no hyphen and a backwards "N". Do we now have to note everywhere that this is an alternate stylization of their name? Of course not. We have a Manual of Style for this; If you want to change it, you need to take it up on the MoS talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    Your logic fails when you give examples like METALLICA or any other album cover that typesets in all caps because what you do not have are reliable sources that also express the brand in that fashion. Show me one WP:RS that shows Metallica in all caps. On the other hand the examples I've shown go beyond the albums cover into reliable sources. You are not being reasonable and you are attempting to force your style. We'll take this to the next level. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    Addendum - Considering your examples above, look also at the reference. paramore;[22] METALLICA; [23] DESCENDENTS. [24] Now compare a-ha [25] and blink-182. [26] Can you see the difference between mere aesthetics and corroborated independent sourcing? My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Non-standard titles and .22stylized.22 renditions per request, and propriety. My76Strat (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A BHA cover band calling itself A-ha

A BHA cover band calling itself A-ha recently toured Africa, Indonesia and Texas. Ticket buyers thinking they were getting the real thing demanded a refund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.12.191 (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:A-ha/Archive_1&oldid=1080935796"