Talk:Sugar, Sugar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

this was used as an advertising jingle in the 70s/80s for.... what?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid to late 1980s, a version of this song was used in commercials for the sugar substitute "Equal" -- the one in the blue packet. 2600:8806:2209:2D00:1E0:E146:38FF:9E7E (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magneto cover

The cover by Mexican band Magneto exists since 1993, from their album "Más". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.233.59 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Boss

How in the world can you possibly not include the fact that Cake Boss Buddy Valastro uses this as his theme song? JustinTime55 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar, Sugar or Sugar Man?

The song is said to have been earlier offered to The Monkees, although songwriter Jeff Barry denies this. Monkees archival expert Andrew Sandoval has suggested that the band may instead actually have been offered a tune called "Sugar Man", but with the passage of time the parties involved simply mis-remembered it as being "Sugar, Sugar", in large part because it made a better anecdote. Peter Tork stated on an interview that they indeed were offered it.

I'm not sure I understand what this means. It says Peter Tork stated on an interview that they indeed were offered it. Offered what? "Sugar, Sugar" or "Sugar Man". Can someone please verify which of the two compositions Peter was referring to? I'd appreciate it! -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this unsourced detail should be kept at all, searching the page history, this was added in this this diff. The person stated where this detail was verified in the edit summary, so if you can access the interview, the path to both clarifying which was meant (I think "Sugar, Sugar" by context) and citing a source is clear.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the edit summary of the editor inserting the text is vague - ie does not specify what interview or when it was given or how it can be accessed etc.- you would be justified in removing the un-sourced text if you contest it and/or feel it is false or misleading to the reader. See
WP:V for more information. The preferred action though would be to research it and see what a reliable source says and correct it and create a citation or.... by placing a 'citation needed' tag at the end of the sentence by putting these brackets {{}} around the word: fact-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
FWIW (which may be not much) I remember seeing a documentary on The Monkeys here in the UK about 5 years ago in which this came up. The article reflects exactly what was said in the documentary on this and one of the Monkeys being interviewed for it, I think it was Tork, said they were in fact offered Sugar, Sugar. Not enough for
WP:V but if a 'citation needed' tag could be added it would give a chance for someone to dig out a source. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, well I would have thought that it meant that Peter Tork said they were in fact offered Sugar Man, but then I asked someone else and they said they believed it meant that Peter Tork said they were in fact offered Sugar, Sugar which is why I started the discussion in the first place. But the information I believe should not be removed even though it doesn't have a reference - I believe the statement is accurate. However I will tag it with the fact/citation needed tag. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need. I don't have working speaks right now or I'd do it but but the interview was a ten second Google search away given the edit summary detail. See [1] and the actual sound file is here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just listened to it and this is what I heard -
  • Interviewer: Now is it true that you guys were offered the song Sugar, Sugar? But you guys refused it?
  • Peter Tork: Well? I suppose...I don't...I, I, I, um...yeah I guess so!
  • Peter Tork: By the time we were about ready for the fourth album we were getting ready to stretch our wings, we thought we were playing some real music and they offered us Sugar, Sugar, and while I actually think it's a pretty good record Sugar, Sugar, and deserves it's place in the bubblegum pop (?), we were not doing that kind of music exactly any longer, and we were into other things so we said no thanks.
By the sounds of it The Monkees may or may not have been offered the song, but I'm still pretty sure that another song "Sugar Man" was thrown at the Monkees at some point even if they were offered "Sugar, Sugar", because the song "Sugar Man" is listed in The Monkees' recording sessions, but it remains unknown whether any of the Monkees got round to recording vocals for it because when they got control over their music, they made their own decisions about what music they played, and "Sugar Man" along with several other songs from January 1967 were abandoned.
But the information still contradicts Jeff Barry's denial that The Monkees were ever offered "Sugar, Sugar" claiming that it wasn't even around at the time. I guess it's just one of those rumours that may or may not ever be resolved. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We just need to use a wording along the lines of: "Peter Tork claimed in an interview that the band were offered the song "Sugar Sugar", but songwriter Jeff Barry has denied this" - with appropriate citations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, true. My use of wording is not always clear. But yeah, using a wording along the lines of what you said is definitely accurate. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just found some references of what may really have happened. This probably won't be of any value to the pages, but I just thought I'd present them. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dante told a 2017 audience that Kirshner brought the song to him in 1969, saying that the Monkees had turned it down. [9]. - knoodelhed (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 12:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sugar, Sugar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sugar, Sugar. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the information about Sugar Man removed?

Personally I feel that that information should have been kept. Because without the information, readers have no way of being educated about the reasons as to why it was incorrectly believed that The Monkees were offered the song "Sugar, Sugar". The more people that are educated that the rumour being false, the better. The article currently states that it is denied that The Monkees were offered "Sugar, Sugar". But without the information relating to "Sugar Man", there isn't enough information to accurately explain how this rumour could have surfaced in the first place. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about this edit from 2017 (15 months ago!). The reference to Sandoval's opinion was unreferenced (as is some of the remaining text), and called "subjective and unnecessary". Plenty of unreliable blogs and mirror sites mention Sandoval's comments - if you can cite a reliable source, I think a very brief addition to the current text could be justified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately I don't know of any reliable sources to add. It would be great if I did though. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been mentioned in Sandoval's book, if anyone has access to that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monkees

This is from The Monkees article: "A rumor persists that the Monkees were offered "Sugar, Sugar" in 1967, but declined to record it. Producer and songwriter Jeff Barry, joint writer and composer of "Sugar, Sugar" with Andy Kim, has denied this, saying that the song had not even been written at the time.[40]"

Yet, the lead in this article claims exactly this rumor to be true.--91.64.84.103 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the statement from the lead. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a million seller in UK?

There are RS FROM THE 70S stating that, yes, it DID sell 1 million copies in the UK. It appears that these "never actually sold a million" claims were attempts by what was to become the BPI to try and discredit the Disc certification system. "Ooh, look! They gave a Gold record to a single that didn't actually sell a million! That means they're unreliable, they are! We need a NEW organisation to do this, like, I dunno, how's about...the BPI?" The "didn't actually sell a million in the UK" is today taken as plain fact, sadly, in the same way as The Beatles' "Please Please Me" not reaching No 1. But there are multiple RS stating, that Sugar Sugar DID sell a million in the UK. 197.87.143.146 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As just one example, the Joseph Murrells book, used as Refs No. 58 and 60 in the article states, ON THE EXACT SAME PAGE, that Sugar Sugar sold a million in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.146 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK certification

Sugar, Sugar was released in UK in 1969. It was first certified Silver(250 000) in 1969, then Gold (1 000 000) in 1970.

In 2000's it was re-released as a digital single. The DIGITAL single has been certified Gold (400 000) units as of 2 February 2024. This is separate from, and unconnected to, the original 1969 7" 45rpm single.

As such, total UK certifications would be 1 400 000+.

The BPI-certified digital release should only reflect its own BPI certification(400 000). And wiki needs to acknowledge that Disc Gold and Silver Records were 100% verified, and need to be included yesterday. 197.87.135.125 (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make up your mind, first you say it did not sell a million then you say that it is supposed to be 1.4 million? And official recognized trade organization in the UK is indeed is BPI. The previous ones are not recognized. The sales did occur but those "certifications" were not it. Dhoffryn (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say it didn't sell a million???

You may not recognise 1959-1973 certifications, but they were covered by major newspapers and magazines, and are used as authoritative by major books covering British Music History. The BPI only recognises BPI Era Singles Sales( ie 1973-). The BPI has only CERTIFIED for 400 000 sales. All in BPI Era. And your number doesn't even match your revisionist view... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.125 (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to article, and one editor in particular

Why that "OCC" number is wrong. This is an article, from November 2000 Chartwatch. I c&p exactly.\..

Chartwatch November 2000 (Copyright Neil Rawlings)

"Sales of records vary so much from year to year and from month to month depending upon factors such as economic conditions and Christmas. This is also true of sales awards.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about sales awards. To begin with, these are not “awards” in the sense that some overseeing authority hands them out, but are prizes that have to be claimed. In other words, it isn’t that the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is constantly monitoring record sales to make the awards, but that individual record companies have to go to the BPI with lists of sales in hand and claim the awards. Some record companies, especially the independents, don’t like the idea of BPI officials scrutinizing their account books and never make the claim. So there will always be records that should have received awards but never have.

The second point is that the awards are made for shipments not sales. The accounts that record companies keep are for supplies to the shops, and the number of records manufactured, not the number sold. No-one keeps track of total sales, though the chart compilers Millward Brown monitor sales because the chart is compiled from a panel of record shops, that is it’s a representative sample (between a sixth and a seventh of all shops). So a record may get a sales award even though a proportion of records remain unsold on shops and eventually hit the bargain bins or are returned to the record company on a sale-or-return basis. In truth, no record company is going to press a quarter of a million records unless two hundred thousand or more have been sold; it is unusual for a no.1 record to exceed 150,000 sales in a week, after all.

Now a little history. The idea of gold awards for records was developed in the States, with the first award being to Glenn Miller for Chattanooga Choo Choo on 10 Feb 1942 for sales of 1,200,000. The award was made by his record company, RCA Victor, and was not audited. Auditing of record sales wasn’t established until 1958 when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took over presentation of awards. A year later, Gerald Marks, editor and founder of Disc magazine, decided to develop a similar scheme for Britain, but because sales were so much lower than in the States Disc awarded silver discs for sales of 250,000 copies or more. The first award was made to Russ Conway for Side Saddle. The only album to receive an award was Elvis Presley’s Blue Hawaii in 1962, but so few albums sold in such quantities during the Sixties that Disc abandoned the idea of making sales awards. When Disc merged with Record Mirror in 1971, a music magazine owned by the same publishers as Record Retailer (now Music Week), the trade paper of the BPI, the BPI took over the auditing of sales awards, introducing a proper scheme for albums for the first time.

As in America, awards for album sales were based on money taken not units sold, so an album was awarded a silver disc for gross sales of £100,000, gold for £250,000 and platinum for £1,000,000. These figures were revised on 1 Jan 1977 because of inflation. The BPI also introduced gold (for 500,000 sales) and platinum (for 1,000,000 sales) for singles. Prior to this, whether a single sold half a million or a million copies was up to the record company to report, and such claims were never audited. EMI claimed that all the Beatles singles from She Loves You to I Feel Fine were million sellers, but Mark Lewisohn in his “Beatles Anthology” found that sales for A Hard Day’s Night were overestimated, and significantly that was the only Beatles single to be shown with a sales award (gold for 500,000 sales) during the reissue campaign of the Eighties.

The number of silver disc awards made in the early Eighties was between sixty and seventy a year. Then in 1987, record sales collapsed. The declined continued the following year, and then the BPI decided to take action. Not to boost sales, but to reduce the shipments required for each sales award. A silver disc was now awarded for 200,000 sales, a gold for 400,000 and a platinum for 600,000. The platinum award represented the biggest change, because for the first time the sale requirement was not twice that of the gold award. Although this helped recovery in the number of silver discs issued in 1989, the recovery didn’t last long and less than twenty silver discs were issued in 1992.

One aspect of reducing the sales thresholds was that singles that had sold more than 200,000 copies in previous years but hadn’t managed the 250,000 threshold, were suddenly eligible for awards. We don’t know how many extra awards were made, because the singles didn’t re-chart. When Stock, Aitken and Waterman achieved their l00th hit in mid-1990, Music Week included a special feature listing not only all the hits in reverse date order, but also the sales awards they had achieved. The following singles had been awarded silver status either because the record companies had applied for the awards after the singles dropped out of the chart or else because the reduction in the sales thresholds suddenly made them eligible:

Lover Come Back To Me - Dead Or Alive That’s The Way It Is - Mel & Kim Say I’m Your Number One - Princess Cross My Broken Heart - Sinitta Venus - Bananarama Got To Be Certain - Kylie Minogue F. L. M. - Mel & Kim Locomotion - Kylie Minogue Love In The First Degree - Bananarama The Harder I Try - Brother Beyond G.T. O. - Sinitta

No singles that had been awarded gold discs under the old threshold were promoted to platinum status under the new threshold, as far as we know, even though the difference between old gold and new platinum was only 100,000 sales.

As the country came out of the longest economic recession since the Thirties, record sales improved and more silver discs were awarded each year until the peak in 1999 when more than eighty silver discs were awarded for singles for the first time ever.

Not only do sales awards vary from year to year, but also month to month. Peak times are in the build up to Christmas, then there is an immediate slump in the New Year, and a levelling off during the Spring and Summer, with a trough in July."

....Me again. That figure that the fellow keeps posting is therefore simply NOT TRUE. ALL we have are certifications. 197.87.135.125 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sugar,_Sugar&oldid=1202752247"