Talk:I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker (With Flowers in My Hair)

Title

I would argue that the rule 'don't capitalise prepositions' shouldn't apply where the preposition is at the start of a sentence of, in this case, bracketed off clause. So, should the page be moved to 'With Flowers in My Hair'? --Robdurbar 10:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's where I had it originally, but it was moved so I left it as it was, although I thought it looked odd. Sweetie Petie 10:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've invited User:Extraordinary Machine, who moved it and seems quite experienced in these matters, to comment. --Robdurbar 10:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I thought it made sense to move it to a small "w" since even though the parentheses are there, it's still the same sentence. Anyway, user:Mel Etitis is more knowledgeable about these things, so I'll drop a note on his talk page. Extraordinary Machine 16:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've been asked to comment, I'd say that the lower-case "w" is correct here (as what's in parentheses is part of the sentence). If it had been the other way round ("(I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker) With Flowers in My Hair") I'd have said that the "w" should have been upper-case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides this song being irritating as fuck, don't you think it's ironic that an artist bemoaning the technology and culture of modern times was made famous by podcasting?

---Hah, interesting point. But I was just wondering, does anyone know what revolutions Thom is singing about in 1969 & 1977? ~ Unfortunate

Hippies and punk rock. Secretlondon 17:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

Surely this song deserves a section commenting on the, uh, "curious" (viz: atrociously banal) lyrics? In a totally NPOV way, of course... :)

When the head of state didn't play guitar,/Not everybody drove a car,

That's nice.

And computers were still scary and we didn't know everything

Are the two related?

And the only way to stay in touch was a letter in the mail

They didn't have telephones in '77 and '69?

When record shops were on top/And vinyl was all that they stocked

They didn't have Compact Cassettes in 1977?

And the super info highway was still drifting out in space

??? DWaterson 00:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The line about the only way to stay in touch is the one that annoys me the most. She seems to have forgotten that ordinary (non-mobile) phones exist. Silly woman ;) -- AnemoneProjectors

To be fair to Ms Thom, while of course phones existed in the 60's and 70's, it was quite expensive to get GPO Telephones to install one (£20 in 1968) and to pay the line rental (£14 a year). By comparison, you could get 8 pints of beer for £1 back then. According to http://www.retrowow.co.uk/retro_technology/telephone/telephone.html "by the end of the sixties more than half of households still did not have a telephone. ... In other countries things were different. In the USA, by 1966, eight out of every ten families had a telephone and in Sweden, nine out of ten."

So someone in her position - a struggling musician in a Tooting bedsit - in that era most probably wouldn't have had one. I was a student in the UK in the 80's and lived in a shared house with no phone. I could make outgoing calls from phone boxes in the street, but the only way for anyone to get in touch with me without physically coming round was "a letter in the mail" (or a telemessage if you were really rich). Try telling that to the kids of today and they won't believe you... 80.229.220.14 12:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just want to point out how moot the comparison of money from that era to present is. You pay $3.90 for a stubby in Australia, for a pint probably $6.50ish minimum. I pay $65 line rental per month, that's 1/10th of the pint, not a dozen, A pint. You could get 8 pints for 1 quid, so 1/8th of a quid is a pint, which is 1/14th of YEARLY line rental, 1.16 quid per month, 8 pints today for an ANNUAL phone bill would still be less than the ten pints for my MONTHLY phone bill.

Besides, if they were that destitute, there's always the bloody phone box up the road. Regardless, her lyrics were clearly written by a disenfranchised person attempting to emulate a culture and time period they haven't a clue about and I think it shows. Given that punk rock started in the mid 70's per even our Punk rocker page, and that I'm pretty sure they were more akin to safety pins through their nose than flowers in their hair, I think the lyrics should be illustrated in the main article as it's a notable fact of the song. Jachin (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me the most, next to the meter regularly being completely off, is the fact that she sings about being a 'punkrocker'. I've always known the people from the era she idolizes as hippies. Punk is an opposite to that, and punkrock nowadays means absolutely nothing. And.. punkrockers with -flowers- in their hair?

Added some stuff on her lyrics. Frankly, I think they're all a little vapid and meaningless- and why on earth would you want to go back to the time when your parents were teenagers? Does she want to hang out with them, or does she want to meet them, break them up and ensure they never have her? Psychiatrists would have a field day. And not one, but two references to how bad the Internet is- bite the hand that feeds you, why don't you. -- Dandelions 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Marvellous. And not too POV either! ;) DWaterson 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Someone has missed the point here. She wants to be a punk rocker (from '77 onwards) and also a hippy (with flowers in her hair, from '69 onwards). Silversmith Hewwo 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What happens in '77 when the Hippie runs in to the Punk Rocker? Self-glassing? Spit in her own face? Also, the line about punk rocker wearing a flower in her hair kind of demonstrates that she's not talking about the two as mutual exclusivities, but as concurrent themes, expressed simultaneously. She's either an abstract genius, or a silly bint... :) Dave420 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly bint ;)

But seriously, if a hippie and a punk ever meet (they won't really meet 'cause they hate each other, I'm just making a point) the punk will probably curse/spit/fight the hippie and they hippie would probably offer a flower/angrily ignore him/run away scared. So in theory a "Punk Rocker with flowers in their hair" would hate itself, get cursed/spat at/beaten up by other punks and will constantly be bombarded with hippies offering flowers/angrily ignoring him/running away scared from him. So really IF this "hybrid" would ever happen, it would suffer from chronic depression and question it's POINTLESS EXISTENCE. Wow, this must be how emo kids are made ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.78 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just add one more while we're at it - the song implies Tony Blair is British 'head of state', not the Queen. --Cedders^tk 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on what? Your belief the Queen doesn't play guitar? Of course she does! :D Jachin (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is so startlingly interesting. I wonder what you would say if this was in fact partly written by a 15 year old in about 1986 who was suffering a bit of teen angst whilst exploring the mind boggling world around her. maybe she enjoyed the notion of how seemingly pleasant and respectful and how stright forward the lives of her grandparents and parents were (or so she thought) Maybe she had just learnt and was intrigued and mystified that a president of the united states in fact used to be an actor. Maybe the revolution she is talking about was her own personal revolution in 1977 when she was 5 and learnt how to defend herself. Maybe she liked the look and edge of pumks but didnt like the way they went against society because she valued society and the way it functioned. but she had the personal rosey idealistic views of hippies. She was learning a hell of alot about the world and wasnt it weird how complicated and unexpected things actually are. PS the super information high-way was an excitable concept in 1986 one that you are now enjoying and know as the world wide web or internet. M.B.

I know it's unconventional to insert comments in between paragraphs of someone's post, but the first few sentences of this paragraph hit the nail on the head, well done! Although ARPAnet started way before '86. I was connected in '84, but it's decades older.  :) Jachin (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is also an issue of an apparently incorrect subjunctive mood in the title[2], with "I Wish I Were a Punk Rocker" the grammatically correct alternative." This title is not incorrect the way it is if you assume she meant she wishes she was one in the '77 and/or '69. If she had belonged to her parents generation she maybe would have been one. However, she was born too late. There is nothing stopping her from being a punk rocker with flowers in her hair NOW. However, she wishes she WAS one back when the information thingywhatis was in outer space. Nes pas? --ozort^ozort 04:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well back in the early 80s I knew plenty of people who you could describe as hippies and punks and they all got along. Not much flower in hair wearing, but united by a common interest in mind altering chemicals...

NPOV PROBLEMS

OK - what "annoys me" - about both the comments below, and the crap-filled article - is that both seem to have been written by people who have philosophical problems with the lyrics, and aren't at all shy about expressing that - ahem - POINT OF FREAKING VIEW.

Feel free to spout off on the talk page, I guess, but it's obviously leaked - and hard - over to the entry itself. All y'all would get their asses seriously laughed out of the employment office if you applied for a job as NPOV writers. "Vapid"? "Irritating as fuck"? "Atrociously banal"? "...annoys me the most....silly woman"? "...punkrock nowadays means absolutely nothing"? "Vapid (again!) and meaningless"?

I'm not defending the song (in fact, I'm not taking any position - or POINT OF VIEW - on it, at all). But some of your criticisms are, well, butthead-stupid. Those who point out the illogic of juxtaposing Punk/Folk, 60s/70s, Sex Pistols/Procol Harum, etc. - miss the exact and, well, fairly obvious POINT of the juxtaposition: both eras (represented by various references: music, dates, events, technology, etc.) were, in the lyricist's mind, times of revolution, freedom, rebellion, anger-yet-hope, etc.

Whoever wrote that "the punk revolution can be viewed as a rebellion against hippie culture" is a blithering idiot -- errr... I mean, that statement needs some SERIOUS explanation, substantiation, etc. (Let's start with the fact that hippie culture probably is most closely associated with Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love, Vietnam (all primarily American phenomena) -- while punk was initially very closely tied to London, the Sex Pistols....get the point, here? Oh - and the two didn't really meet up, temporally -- the whole disco, blow-dry, etc. thing separated them. So - get a fact, Jack.)

I'm not going to clean up the article, for 2 reasons. 1) a reference article about a song shouldn't contain the authors' personal analysis of, and opinion about, the lyrics -- at least, not without some supporting references, at all. And, 2) the stuff I'm referring to is a pile of logical and POV dogshit. Clean up your own poop, you smug-ass little MySpace puppies. A Doon 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read: WP:NPA & WP:AGF.--Greasysteve13 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

the whole song is based on false nostalgic sentiment, that has been idealised to the point of propaganda. I personally do not think we should have an analysis on the lyrics as they do not have a meaning that can be historically traced, the content is distorted. So any analysis of nonsensical lyrics (in my eyes) is pointless. She is simply a girl or *ahem* a woman (now 25?) sired (assuming the lyrics of the song are correct) by parents just out of their teens, 'looking back' (which is impossible since she wasn't alive) with rose coloured glasses. The song sucks (to put it succinctly (my POV on a discussion page)), but any attempted analysis of it is pretty much futile, please fellow wikipedians retrieve some proper source material direct from the composer interviews, artists sites...references people! before you start specuating with personal POV on a wikiarticle. 203.164.55.67 17:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This reads like a fanzine - not an encyclopedia entry

I'm not going to flag this article since I think it fair to expect that only fans would bother to write about this (and I'm not one, btw - never heard the song because I live in a cardboard box under a bridge in the mountains on a deserted desert isle with my dog, thank god). However, this article is weak; it's simply not writtin in an encyclopedia-type style. It's not the worst I've read on wikipedia, but only because I have no life and spend all my time reading wikipedia articles and I've read some truly pathetic and appalling abuses of the English language, server space, bandwidth, freedom of speech, and my brain. This one isn't offensively bad, it just sucks. How about pausing to think through and organize your thoughts before writing? There is a reason your teachers told you to do so when writing essays. Sure, they were wrong about everything else, most couldn't even add, but they were right about this if nothing else. The article jumps suddenly into declaring the meaning of some lines with no context or indication that we should care. Should we? Why? How about taking that stuff to your myspace page? Or just stay up all night blogging about it. I know I should not just whine here, that I should dive in and change it myself, but a) I don't know squat about the subject and b) like much of the rest of humanity I'd much rather bitch about things than change them, at least right now. Alright - saying it sucks is uncalled for - instead I'll say it needs some work - and I need a nap. EDIT: I'm NOT saying there should be no interpretation of lyrics, nor that the apparent intention of the article is a huge problem - just that it could really use some improvement. Continue in the same direction if you wish, just put some more thought in to high-level organization. Thanks --Fitzhugh 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Subjunctive/indicative mood

Linguistic purists might complain about her use of the indicative mood ("I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker") in the title[2], arguing that the subjunctive mood - "I Wish I Were a Punk Rocker" - would be more grammatically 'correct'.

'I wish I were a punk rocker' would indicate she want's to be a punk rocker now, but doesn't the phrase 'I wish I was a punk rocker' indicate that she wishes she was a punk rocker in the day and age of the rest of the song? Help me out here, I'm not a native speaker. Also, is it really so controversial that some grammar is more correct than other that the quotes around 'correct' are needed? Faffe 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It’s still subjunctive, but it doesn’t really matter. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/were.html It’s too late for that now, anyway. I don’t think that a grammatical error in the song’s title—especially one so insignificant—really needs to be mentioned in this article. Kikimm (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Thom is clearly expressing a desire"?

I've changed this statement to "Thom could be expressing a desire". Stating that she is "clearly" expressing a desire is either POV or requires citation. 87.114.147.146 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Over analysis of lyrics

"Vapid lyrics", "silly woman" etc. etc. Wake Up its a fricking POP Song! Most of the genre is about a catchy tune and maybe a few thoughtful sound bites of lyrical poetey, beyond that we are mostly dealing with literary dog turd (look at some of the Beatles lyrics, walruses on cornflakes???). Unbless it is claiming to be something more meaningful, Pop music is a chirpy cheap pleasure and indulgence in life. Complaining that it lacks erudite merit is a bit like complaining that a chilli-dog from a street vendor hasn't been served with the same finness as a meal at Claridges. Dainamo 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

She is a silly woman for singing "super-info highway" when she really means "information superhighway" :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Magdalen MCR Choir

If this was apparently by "Magdalen MCR Choir", why does the phrase "Magdalen MCR Choir" not appear whatsoever on the Sandi Thom article? Is it because she has NOTHING to do with them? Why has this been changed to credit "Magdalen MCR Choir" as the artist? Are humans on planet Earth really so ignorant that this article sat here since June 2006, before someone decided more than 11 entire years later, that the artist being "Sandi Thom" was wrong, and needed a "minor fix"? Can someone actually provide a RELIABLE source that proves that Magdalen MCR Choir had something to do with this, instead of just saying "minor fix", with no actual source? And for the love of reliable sources, don't bother linking to a source, that uses THIS ARTICLE as their source, because that's like saying "I found out from a guy, who found out from me" --86.25.131.8 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)