Talk:Sam & Dave/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sam and Dave?

Wouldn't "Sam and Dave" be more appropriate? -- Zoe

That's what I typed into the Allmusic guide and it redirected me to Sam & Dave. That's not authoritative, but that's why I did it. As long as the other redirects to the final location, it won't bother me. Tokerboy

"Sam & Dave" seems to be the official version, as it appears on their records etc. Wikipedia has a redirect from "Sam and Dave". Rodparkes 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing a count on google hits for & or and should give the right one to use. Mr Coast to Coast (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sam's Solo Career

Since Sam Moore has his own Wikipedia entry, most of the section on Sam's solo career career would be more appropriately included there. I don't have time to move it now because it needs to be integrated with what's already there, but maybe someone else would like to have a go? Rodparkes 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors?

I'm not a Sam and Dave person, but this article isn't helping me understand it any better. Can someone pull together some editing mojo and get this lookin' encyclopedic? -Lightwiki 02:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree with the above. This article is endless and well-nigh unreadable. It almost reads like a parody of a bad, fancruft- filled wikipedia band entry. (And this is coming from a Sam & Dave fan!)

Step one would be to get all the crufty info about chart placings and sales figures out of the body of the article and into a discographical table at the foot of the article. Step two would be to reduce the remaining verbiage by at least 50%.

Seriously. 50%.

Remember, the purpose of a Wikipedia entry is NOT to list every detail about a subject. It's to give a good, solid general overview of that subject, and to point readers to other resources that cover the topic in greater detail. There's lots of good info in here, but someone needs to get busy pruning this thing, and how! 172.134.86.122 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - report back when you get it finished. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if everyone here is fine with an overhaul, I'll take it on. But there's going to be a LOT of cuts, and I don't want to get into any reversion wars. So I won't go ahead until I get a sense that the people who have worked on this page are comfortable with a big re-edit. Let me know... 172.134.86.122 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been watching this page for at least a year and I have not seen any major changes. I don't think anyone has actively worked on it in a long time. Go ahead and be bold! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay! It might take me a while to get through all of this, but I'll give it a shot. 172.134.86.122 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Me again. I haven't touched the album discography yet, but I've tried to streamline the article and work on the singles discog. Whaddaya think? 172.163.241.72 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote most of the content for this site prior to most of it being deleted, and had not been to the site for about a month. I admit to being a newbie at wiki particles, but did read that being respectful of other writers and avoiding disparaging comments was part of the code of conduct and do not think some of the comments made are consistent with that spirit.

I realized and agree that the article was too long relative to other bands wiki pages ive reviewed, but did not have any negative comments regarding length over a six month period, and found this to be one of the few places on the web to find detailed info on the group. I think the article now misses highlighting a number of the significant contributions the group made to music history and future generations of musicians, including being widely considered one of the greatest live acts of the 60's, and greatly influencing future musicians from Springsteen to Elvis Costello to Michael Jackson. The song soul man did have a broader cultural impact, as did the blues brothers band. I also feel losing the b sides of the singles listings detracts from the article as well. I will review the new article when I have time and sparingly re-add key omissions, and be as consistent as possible with wiki standards as I know them.

Mmstevko (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi MmStevko...

Yes, Wikipedia can be a rough place. But when you submitted your article, it said right on the submission page : If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it.

So, that being said, I respect that you have strong feelings about Sam & Dave, and their place in rock and soul history. So do I. That's why we both want the best article that we can fashion for them.

Given that, my feeling is this: a Sam & Dave article that is too long, or goes off on too many tangents, or makes gushing, unprovable statements (e.g., that they outperformed Aretha Franklin at Madison Square Garden), does Sam & Dave a disservice. It makes it seem as if the only way to justify their importance is to throw everything we can think of at the article, and hope that sheer bulk will make them seem important. Instead, (unfortunately) all it does is make it look as if several desperate Sam & Dave fans are trying to inflate the importance of their heroes. Which makes Sam & Dave (and their fans) look a little sad.

To sum up, economy is important. Sam & Dave made their reputation on songs that were all under four minutes. There was no extraneous frippery, and the Stax house band never wasted a note. In my view, this article should aim for the same standard.

Cheers, rudyardk 172.132.106.30 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about wiki formatting, style and other issues. Are you able to post a good fair use image of Sam & Dave to the site? I understand your philosophy and given the guidelines of wiki, I agree with them and look forward to collaborating to make this article as good and accurate as possible. What is your interest in, and what are your knowledge resources, about Sam & Dave?

FYI I have reviews of the Aretha concert from the New Yorker and Rolling Stone and both state that Aretha got outplayed by Sam & Dave at this show, which should be adequate third party substantiation for the comment made(I just hadnt posted the source yet). I did change the statement, because performing at the show was probably enough to give the reader a sense of the types of performance highlights they had, which was the intent of the paragraph. Mmstevko (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a soul music fan; my professional background's in writing and editing. I'm actually fairly new to the wikipedia process, and haven't quite figured out the fair use photo thing yet. But it defitintely needs to be looked into, as this site could use a few photos!

By the way, the credits on my CD version of "The Best of Sam & Dave" indicate that Jim Stewart was the producer of Sam and Dave's sessions until "I Thank You" (at which point Hayes and Porter were officially annointed producers). However, looking at the "Stax Story" CD set, I see that Hayes & Porter are credited as producers on "Hold On, I'm Comin'", "Soul Man" and "When Something Is Wrong With My Baby". Perhaps the entry should be amended to show that official production credits at Stax rarely appeared on singles, and that for Sam and Dave's early Stax singles production credits have been retroactively assigned to both Jim Stewart, and to the Hayes/Porter team. Cheers, rudyardk 172.164.21.126 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reading the entry for Sam & Dave for first time in February, 2010, so perhaps the editing that some were desiring has already taken place. I found the article, as it currently appears, to be extremely informative, well researched, and well written. I didn't feel like it had been written by "desperate Sam & Dave fans trying to inflate their importance" at all. If anything, I'd say it makes a strong case for the duo's rightful status as soul music legends. It is comprehensive yes - so I find complaints that it is not "encyclopedic", frankly, baffling. (Perhaps comments to that affect were made before the article appeared in its current form.) To one who finds it "unreadable" because of its length now, I'd say this may have as much to do with the short attention span of the reader, as with any shortcoming on the part of the writing. I wasn't watching the clock, but it didn't take me all that long to read it. And I'd think it better to err on the side of completeness, than to leave out pertinent facts?

Brooklar (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold On, I'm Coming

Additional information about this song can be found in Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-12-12#Hold On, I'm Coming. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote templates

There are differenent templates for footnotes, depending on the type of citation.

• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite news

If you use the template in the article where the citation should be, it will show up under Footnotes. Look at examples in other articles, e.g. Ralph Bass, Paul McCartney.

Wikipedia:Citing sources is the general description of what to do. If you have trouble feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam & Dave Material/Interviews Wanted

If you were involved with Sam & Dave in some way(band member, management, friend, co performer etc.) I would like to talk with you about a project im working on. Please contact Mitch at mmstevko@earthlink.net.

I saw that someone just posted a complaint about not mentioning the drummer for the band(they had many, but the main touring drummer(and an incredible musician) during the 1960s was Clarence Roddie. If the post from the May 16th is Clarence or one of the Soulman Orchestras other drummers. please drop me an email!!!

thanks and thanks to all the great contributors for the sam & dave wiki site

how is this suggestive?

"Hold On, I'm Comin'", when released, received objections from radio stations over the
suggestive title. This resulted in a name change by Stewart and quick 

re-recording and re-release, and nearly all the original U.S. copies of

the single bear the title "Hold On, I'm A-Comin'".

i dont see how "hold on, im comin'" could be interpreted as suggestive. and fail to see how hold on, im a-comin' is any better. a little explaination in the article would be helpful. the only possibility i can see is people substituting the word comin' for cumming, which is just childish. did they really have to be that careful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.165.150 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)