Jump to content

Talk:Graham Parker

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

RS all-time albums

[edit]

I recall that in addition to Squeezing Out Sparks, Howlin Wind and Heat Treatment were on the 1987 version of Rolling Stone's list. Is there somewhere to find this list and note it? (I don't see why the newer version is more authoritative. The Sex Pistols were #2 in 1987.)

P.S. I like the additions to the page!

--Ccoll 03:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is pretty good. Reference to 1987 list with cite has been added. Wasted Time R 13:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think the post-Rumour years might now need fleshing out to balance the additions. --Ccoll 04:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"At this point, Parker began to develop his songwriting toward a more serious approach, which also reflected his desire to break into the American market."

[edit]

Is there any evidence for this, or does anyone else agree? I find it an intriguing interpretation but have never read anything along these lines. Why would "serious" songs suit the US market? Also, Stick to Me has some outright silly songs.Ccoll 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this line came from me. Perhaps it's not very well expressed. There's no doubt that Parker was always keen to break into the US market ("Mercury Poisoning" is pretty clear on what he thought of the record label who - in his opinion - didn't give him the US exposure he wanted). I do think that Stick to Me represents a change in his style - there are fewer songs about shagging chambermaids/gypsies and rock-n-roll lifestyle, and the inclusion of Heat in Harlem is very different from anything previously attempted, but I can't recall clearly that Parker actually said at the time that he was consciously writing different material. I do recall that he said - after all the criticism - that Stick to Me would be recognised as a great album in future years, much like the Stones "Exile on Main Street", but once again, I don't have the relevant copies of NME or Sounds to verify this memory - I knew I should have kept them! If you think this sentence should be removed, then feel free.--Dogbertd 10:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's plausible, though wanting to break into the US market seems to go without saying. I could go either way on whether Stick... is more serious. What I really don't get is why one would think Americans could be expected to prefer more serious songs. I live there! (though I was in kindergarten when that album came out.) Anyway, I'd like to leave it in to see what others think.Ccoll 06:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see what others think. I have to admit to bias, since STM is my favourite Parker + Rumour album. I didn't realise until recently that they'd had to re-record the whole damn thing. Nice pics, BTW.--Dogbertd 10:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to make it more neutral - he changed his style - wiothout suggesting what that change actually was.--Dogbertd 08:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created a page for Stick To Me.Ccoll 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1982 interview

[edit]

This Musician interview done at an interesting juncture in GP's career is very useful. Dogbertd, maybe this is where you read about "the shift in approach" on Stick to Me. [1] Ccoll 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is his birthday November 15 or 18?

[edit]

Entries in narrative (November 18, 1950) and right box (November 15) are inconsistent. Jds13 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) AllMusic has his birthday as 15 November http://www.allmusic.com/artist/graham-parker-p5103Turtlens (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV Template

[edit]

See this comment about the matter. Fmph (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not taken seriously in the UK

[edit]

There was a documentary about him that showed on the BBC last night. It said that GP&TR didn't fit in with pub rock, and as punk happened the younger writers on the NME ignored him. I was in my late teens at that time and always thought Parker was American because he sang in this real cod-American accent (much more pronounced than most UK singers had), at precisely the time when punks in the UK were rejecting the cod-American voices that everyone in the UK sang in up to that point, and singing in their own accent. So Parker stood out as 'old fashioned' because he was singing in this fake accent, rather than being real, which was what punk was all about. Plus, the fact he laid the accent on so thick and threw in references to Americanisms and used American words made it clear he was pandering to the US market. So no wonder UK punks thought he was crap and rejected him. This wasn't properly discussed in the documentary: they sort of suggested he was overlooked because of ageism. Can we put this in the article? (Same thing happened to Billy Idol, by the way. He was always a laughing stock here and his cod-American act was a joke. No wonder both Parker and Idol ended up living in America.)86.133.54.195 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might possibly be considered 'Point of View' material. JF42 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Early career (1960s–1976)"

This section is a mess, particularly from late 1974 on. Did somebody start editing and get bored, or did they simply not read the material they were repeating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graham Parker. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

grahamparker.com

[edit]

I've deleted the link to grahamparker.com. This is a confection of some outfit calling itself Celebrity-Websites.com, which invites you to "Connect With Hundreds Of Top Celebrities". (It's big on capital letters.) It says little about Parker, but does say:

Your Original Biography Of This Celebrity May Be Published Here
Biography must be an orginal [sic] composition beween 1200 and 1500 words containing a factual chronology of dates, events, influences, challenges and achievements. It should be an honest and unbiased critical evaluation of the life and work of this celebrity. Their contribution to society and the environment should also be discussed.

Do I need to elaborate? -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graham Parker. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Parker&oldid=1204537563"