Talk:Scott Walker (singer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Titled

"imaginatively titled Scott, Scott 2 and Scott 3." sounds like sarcasm to me.

"after a brief early-70s flirtation with the country and western scene which yielded three solo albums—The Moviegoer (1972), "Any Day Now" (1973), Stretch (1973), and We Had It All (1974)"

Isn't that FOUR albums, not three?

Mental health

Is Walker known to have any mental health problems? Just curious.

Well he is bonkers. -- Beardo 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

-Walker has no mental health problems apart from being a sensitive artist who cannot sacrifice part of his creative soul to just sell records for corporations. Those dimwits like beardo should waste their meagre wit elsewhere.210.11.113.219 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC) AH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.11.64.209 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At least I know how to sign off my name properly. -- Beardo 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

-I've always assumed he was an alcoholic, based on his suicide attempts and 1970s semi-hermitage, etc. In the recent BBC spot that's been going around the Internet for a year or so, he even says he spent much of the last 30 years doing "A whole lotta drinking..."

Cleanup tag

I didn't post the cleanup tag, but since that person didn't seem to leave notes, the main thing I see from the article is that it's POV and the language is quite florid and casual; "thus ends the love affair with pop", "partly for protection" (paraphrase), etc. It reads too much like a review, needs to be more NPOV, more formal, encyclopedic, fewer adjectives and adverbs. Anchoress 22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is with these edits, which I reverted at the time for not being in an encyclopaedic style but the material was then re-added, together with more in a similar style over the last week or so. I'm not keen on doing mass reversions but there is so much wrong with the style that it would probably be easier to start from scratch than to fix the whole lot and much of it is just the author's opinion and shouldn't be in the article anyway. On the other hand most of the facts look pretty solid and it is a style rather than content problem, so I'm not sure what to do. Thoughts? --Cherry blossom tree 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, im the guy who added the cleanup tag and also to the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Culture and Arts list for mainly the POV statements (seeing as there are many) and also due to the lack of sectioning. The article reads (mostly) in chronlogical order but at time does jump around which lead me to a bit of confusion. Overall though, the article is not beyond repair in my opinion and just needs a sweep removing the POV bits and perhaps to make more flowing paragraphs. As for the sectioning part of the cleanup i suggest as per usual, to make them inbto periods like "early walker brothers period/era", "solo career era" etc. with subheaders for noteable occurances or releases or whatnot. The paragraphing and sectioning off of the article is, for me, the priority seeing as how POV statements present are so blatent that they can easily be removed during or after any editing process. uhhhh. i think thats it for now. i hope to edit this a bit myself later but at the moment i know nearly nothing about scoot walker so i dont feel like i should touch it until i do. (chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 03:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)}

Ladies and gentlemen of wikipedia and readers. I have been changing the stuff on Scott Walker because what you had on him was so piss poor. As a professional writer, journalist and film-maker who has followed this subject for over 40 years I know what I am talking about even if you don't. How can you or I possibly leave out some critical pov about a major artist who has been working in our culture for going on 50 years? That is pointless. So-called "neutrality" is also silly. Every pov is a pov even a banal one that isn't worth reading or publishing. What you should mean is a balanced and informed pov, no idolatry and a critical engagment with the subject that shows awareness of the subject's actual life and career should be your criteria. Or do you really believe you can cobble together a version of the world just from your constituency, especially in specialist fields, that is worth reading?

And that is what I provide. I also think that it should be more or less a positive one in a Wikipedia context, at least for living people. If that isn't your policy - change it in the spirit of real encyclopedists and render you terricic project less pompous or riddled with pretentious contradictions that lead to no positive result and are impossible to implement. How can one write about Mozart or Beethoven without mentioning genius, and why should one? Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 06:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC) And by the way apart from the beginning I leave notes every time in the edit summary.AH.210.11.113.219 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not patting myself on the back too much, I think we have here four excellent editors who are committed to raising the standard of this article. I am sure we will be able to retain Andrew's excellent and appreciated biographical information while bringing the prose and format more in line with Wikipedia's norms. And Andrew, just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you when I said the editor had left no notes; it is customary for an editor who adds a cleanup tag to an article to justify it on the talk page - I was referring to that editor, who responded to my comment directly above you. I for one look forward to working with all three of you. Anchoress 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I spoke harshly earlier, which I am sorry for. I have no problem with (and am very grateful for) the work you are doing to add content - I am just concerned with the style. It reads like something from a magazine rather than an encyclopaedia article. This isn't a criticism, but it isn't the style that Wikipedia aims for, which is something more formal.

You also discuss points of view. Wikipedia articles are meant to be written according to a neutral point of view, which doesn't mean balanced or banal, it means that (on matters where there are no definite facts) we do not try to determine an absolute truth, rather to accurately reflect how the world sees an issue. Out of this come our other two policies - verifiability (that all material in Wikipedia must be cited to other sources) and no original research (that articles may not contain new analysis.) If you think we shouldn't follow these policies then you're entitled to the opinion but you have little chance of changing them.

To take your example of Beethoven, it would be acceptable to say that he is widely considered to be a genius, with a reference to an external source. Indeed a critical perspective in an article such as that (or this) is desirable but it cannot be a piece of original research and it should cite its sources.--Cherry blossom tree 10:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:To beat on the point further, i did not add the clean up tag because the article sucked, its actually more than i expected to read and did give a good background to scott walkers life. i added the tag simply because its not a perfect article yet, and i would like it to be because i think scott walker warrents a "perfect" article. that can be acheived with all the things mentioned as per above. anyhooo. hope to help edit soon. ta ta. —(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 06:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)}

Okay, that's all fine, but it is a work in progress. There were some offensive errors originally- that he suffered mental illness, that I removed. I will try and justify everything I write, but all of it comes from material and information gleaned over 40 years. I don't understand the comment at the top about- "thus ends the love affair with pop." because I don't see it and it isn't mine, whereas, "partly for protection" may refer to an early point I made about the reuniting of the Walker Bros in 1975. This refers to them "the brothers that never were" also and is a direct quote and play on words from their 3rd album sleeve notes on Images, as is the huddling together for protection comment. This has been published numerous times and repeated in the official lore of the grouup for decades now. It is not a casual comment at all but a direct historical link to how they were presented by their record company to hundreds of thousands of fans and the general public, and presumably themselves also. That explains somne of my method to you. The comment about Walker's first recordings as being clinically anodyne is one that strikes any listener who knows how intense and wraught the later early recordings on the Walker Bros and solo albums can be. They are almost uncomfortable to listen to today because of this stark intensity- so it a noteworthy contrast that his earliest work is almost the exact opposite. One usually associates such intensity with early outpourings, another switch.

I have begun sectioning the piece. The comments about the earlier Walker are justified because there has been so much ink spilled on them in the popular press of the period to which it refers For instance Julian Cope's release of Firescape in the Sky - The Godlike Genius of Scott Walker. People wrote at one time on walls that Eric Clapton was God. This was reported widely in the media, commented, analysed, mocked, and treated eventually as part of the living legend. It not only purveys a quality of the time but also something that goes into character of the musicial, pop star or whover is the comet whizzing past. It's tail is part of its presence. The latest material needs some exposition but it will remain more economic and less definite in its characterisation. Cheers Andrew 210.11.113.219 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As a suggestion, anytime you know theres a published something somewhere about scoot walker that applies, like for instance "the brothers that never were" throw in a {{citation needed}}. It will let editors know that a source is needed and likly retreivable. And if you already know to do this... Sorry. heh. —(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)}

I think you need to consider who will be reading this - an encyclopaedia article should be accessible to people who know nothing about the topic but want to learn more. I don't doubt that your reference to "the brothers that never were" is based in fact but to readers the sleeve notes from their third album it is just confusing. If you're going to use a phrase like that you need to state where it comes from and what was meant by it.

You also mention that 'Walker's early recordings being clinically anodyne strikes any listener...'. I tried to explain in my previous comment that while we encourage critical analysis, in this form it qualifies as original research, which is disallowed. You are saying that the statement comes from your own interpretation of the records. When we need to include opinions we do not present them as facts but rather report what has been said by other people. I don't think this is a particularly controversial opinion and, as you say, a lot has beet written on the subject so finding someone to attribute it to shouldn't be difficult - there is no problem with the actual material, it is just a question of style. Even if you don't have a source to hand it is better to write something like "critics feel that..." and return to it later rather than simply stating the opinion.--Cherry blossom tree 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is where to post it but whatever...It's worth mentioning that his album "the drift" is mentioned in Art Forums best of 2007 issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.209.109 (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Towards a better, more accurate, more encyclopedic article

Per WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, in the next couple of days I shall be working to bring the article into conformity with Wikipedia's norms. The first sweep will be to remove or flag with a {{Fact}} tag anything that is editorial in nature and unsourced. I recommend that editors get busy now citing sources for assertions, particularly if they are descriptive in nature and not obviously factual.

In particular per WP:BLP, my next sweep will be to flag or remove any unsourced information about this person. I suggest that all editors working on this article read up on the policy because it is of primary importance at this time. Remember, the onus is on the editor adding information to justify its inclusion with reputable sources. Therefore, the time to get going referencing factual information about this person is now, or else it may be excluded.

If there is disagreement about these edits, please, rather than reverting them wholesale, discuss them on the talk page. I am not taking over the article (please don't look at my post here as a request not to edit), but I am merely taking responsibility for the shepherding of this article v/v the policies mentioned above. Please don't minimise the seriousness of WP:BLP; it is very much in the radar of WP admin, office and editors, and we run the risk of having this whole article removed and stubbed if we can't substantiate each and every inclusion.

I look forward to working with you further. If anyone considers themselves to be 'in the middle' of an editorial sweep themselves and wants me to hold off until they're done, just say so here and let me know when the cleanup edits can start. And remember, we need references! Please, if you do nothing else, consider sourcing some of the info in this article and adding references.

Thank you. Anchoress 06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls. wait till after 31 August to style conform. Cheers. Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 10:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like other editors have been at it though. Anchoress 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear editors and Anchoress- what an eloquent title - This is the best that I can do with this given your restrictions on comment. Everything I say is sourceable, so take take it as citations required where and whenever anything questionable strikes you. I don't mind the changes made to this point. It is late August 31 in Melbourne Australia where I write. You may be waking up. If there are further questions on any facts please check with me by posing it as question and I will do my best to respond with source or explanation. You can even email me at kosmedia@hotmail.com if you prefer. Cheers Andrew Hanos210.11.64.210 08:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew; thanks for singling me out but I'm 'just' an editor like you guys. Just more assertive, maybe. I won't be getting to the once-over until tomorrow at least (probably at least 24 hours), so if you have other things you want to do go ahead. I haven't checked over the changes you made recently, but I can't help noticing there are still no references in this article. I believe you when you say you have references, but we must cite them in the document. I noticed that you haven't edited any other articles besides Scott's, so you may not know what 'good' WP articles typically look like. You can get an idea by checking out the 'featured article' on the WP homepage. We need Scott's article to look like that, or it's going to be brutally pruned, either by me or by someone even less sympathetic (if that's possible :wink:). I confess I am not too good at doing references, but if you have them, we can find you some help inserting them correctly. Online references are easy, you can just add them using the WP hyperlink tool directly after the text you are supporting. References from non-web media are a tiny bit more challenging, but no less necessary. Anchoress 10:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note... the {{inuse}} tag can sometimes be helpful to avoid edit conflicts if one person is making a lot of changes... one should not leave it on for too long of course but it has saved my bacon more than once. Hope that helps, happy editing! Bringing an article up to snuff can seem thankless but can be very rewarding. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been trying to think of that template. Cheers! Anchoress 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't done any before, but I will when I get round to it. Folks Like Orson welles and Jaques Brel to start. And I will learn the way to reference it but I just don't have time now, so it gives you guys something to do, and in the spirit of accuracy and the best article possible I'm sure you'll do your best. But a good start is The Wire interview to which the article is already linked at bottom and The Independent article of 1995 also linked. Then there is a Mojo interview from June 2006 I believe, where if I rememeber correctly he talks about the Walker Bros sound being his.

So- 3rd Par_ Walker being first to adopt new elecctric base comes from numerous biographic accounts but is definitely claimed on the sleeve notes to the CD of his earliest recordings. Sanctuary Records UK 2001. "The prodigious talent" has been noted repeatedly by commentators because Walker at 21, 22 or 23 was too young to create records like The Sun Aint Gonna Shine Anymore, sing aching ballads of loss or interpret Brel's sometimes caustic, world weary explorations of death and decrepitude. Do you expect me to reference articles from the 60s? Please use some common sense.

The W Bs Par 4. Walker did not form WBs. He was not even lead singer to begin with. It was John alpha male Maus. They were a beat group that specialized in LaLaLaLa the Land of a Thousand Dances etc. From various accounts this is the sequence. John and Scott knew each other from crossing paths in LA. John was a child TV star. Scott ran in groups like The Routers and apparently even had a hit instrumental with them. (I don't know it. See Sanctuary sleeve notes.) The claim that Gary was catalyst for their removal to the UK has been repeated countless times. He was also the glue that kept them together. Again see interviews and various sleeve notes on various compilations.

 Anyway I must pause now.  To be continued...

Cheers Andrew210.11.64.209 06:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

incorrect link

this article is linked to 'fantasy focus', a website commercial on wiki about a radio program on espn. one of the hosts is named scott engel, however this is not the same scott engel.

I corrected the mis-link in the fantasy focus article. --Cherry blossom tree 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi... Continuing notes for references:

See also A Deep Shade of Blue by Mike Watkinson and Pete Anderson ISBN 0-86369-877-8 Virgin Books 1994. Sections of this are extracted on the sleeve booklets of the CD reissues of the first three Walker Bros albums- Take it Easy with the Walker Bros, Portrait and Images.

Par 5. BBC Radio One Mike Reed's sleeve notes on The Walker Brothers - After the Lights Go Out compilation in 1990 for Phonogram provides a valuable potted history, repeating known facts.

Par 6. See par above and Independent 1995 article already linked to this entry. Will continue tomorrow. Cheers AH.210.11.113.219 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing references-

BY THE BY: This site now looks great! Thanks for the photo edits of Scott Solo covers and the new Headline. The Images album cover would also look great and Nite Flights from the 2nd Walker Bros period. While this is not a Walker Bros bio Scott has used this group to launch himself twice, so it realy is of seminal importance in his career. Without it there may have been no Scott Walker.

Par 6 Cont: The extract from A Deep Shade Of Blue refers to the hysteria of the Walker fan base, the sophistication of the music and the classic quality of their 2 no 1 hits. "No 'All time Great Singles' list would be complete without The Sun Ain't Conna Shine Anymore or Make it Easy on Yourself, and sandwiched between the death of Merseybeat and the birth of psychedlia is a period that will forever belong to The Walker Brothers."

Also, in 2001 David Peschek in London writes: "For a while in the mid-60s, Walkermania eclipsed Beatlemania as the epic dejection of MiEoY and TSAGSA glowered over the charts." He also repeats the "brothers that never were tag line."

Par 7. See same sleeve notes as above "wall of sound", the choice of material, Johnny Franz and the remarkable musical qualities of the group that allowed thjem to appeal to "Mums and Dads" as well as their sons and especially their daughters. Alan Freeman writes the sleeve notes for original Images LP , which are also reproduced on this Mercury CD reissue. He was probably the first to coin the phrase "the brothers who never were" a variant of which is repeated nearly thirty years later in the 1995 Independent article and above. I believe the Mojo June 2006 interview has Walker revising the Walker sound and claiming authorship. to be cont.. Andrew Hanos 210.11.113.219 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Par 8. See A Deep Shade of Blue extracts for more on the dynamic at the last days of the Walkers. Also refer to authors's comments about qualities of John's input in the Images album and their unique harmonizing on various tracks. For instance from ADSoB:- "The feuding Walker's frontmen unite to close Side One with one of the all-time great versions of Ben E King's Stand By Me, delivered with blistering passion and intensity that perhaps only Scott and John could muster."- It was Scott who chose to ignore Franz's and John's advice on releasing Everything Under the Sun as a single. Scott admits to putting his foot down and scoringh another miss. Did he do it on purpose?

Par 9. By 1967 The Walker's image and sound was moving contrary to the psychedlia, Jimi Hendrix and drug culture. Various writers and critics have commented on how they appeared suddenly dated, and these qualities in relation to the two singles they released that year. Some of this is hindsight, but it's an odd choice to return to an early sixties sound when things are breaking out all over the place in the pop scene. EUtS was unsentimental and driving, whereas Stay With Me Baby, overwrought and even cloying in its emotional desperation. Walker says it had to be a No 1 for them to stay together...mmmn... well it never was going to be.

Par 10. Scott 1 is really where Walker was heading and he and Franz knew it. It's a pity and unclear that the Walkers as a recording entity had to be sacrificed along the way. Walker complained at the time that Jackie and other Brel material was not quite to popular English (speaking) tastes. He was trying to graft a foreign culture onto not only a non-existant musical and intellectual tradion, but also wed these to popular taste. Doomed, but 100% for trying with such Quixotic passion. Brel's music has been succesful but mostly on the festival circuit and on an off Broadway show version mounted by Shuman and Blau. Walker prompted arists like David Bowie to record covers of Amsterdam.

Par 11. The influences on Scott at this time are rehearsed ably in ADSoB as cited above. to be cont... Please note This Mojo award below seems to be new. June 2006. The MOJO Icon Award Voted for by MOJO readers and Mojo4music users, the recipient of this award has enjoyed a spectacular career on a global scale. Presented by Phil Alexander Winner: Scott Walker Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 05:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Continuing references: Pars 11 & 12. See Sounding a cool note by Mark Edwards of the Sunday Times on the Montague Terrace site linked to this already- "Walker said of his fourth solo album, 'Scott 4 tried to link lyrics by Sartre, Camus and Yevtushenko to Bartok modal lines, but nobody noticed." Indeed, but not quite everybody. As for the Schubertian Lieder connection, from ADSoB again:"Genevieve can be seen as a statement of intent, Scott's attempt to achieve the Schubertian ideal of marrying words, orchestration and melody into perfect harmony." In fact this refers back to the one song showing the way ahead on the Images album. John Maus admits to being somewhat gobbsmacked by it and says he never saw it coming. In all of this, of course Walker is a rather late interloper, a brash American one, except that he somehow wishes to do this in the field of pop music, but then, anything was possible in the sixties and the year that Sgt. Pepper came out, and that is the key to this. Pop music was serious, and could go anywhere it chose.

Walker mentions the Gregorian Chant and Monastery incident in BBC Culture Club interview linked to this. Marc Almond's sleeve note on his compilation of 1990 Walker material, boy child on Phonogram states: "More in common with Jean-Paul Sartre than John Paul George and Ringo, he is the thinking man's crooner." He reiterates the sophitication and range of material that Walker can embody with his unique voice and artistic sensibility.

Par 13. Walker tried to commit suicide a several times and was a solitary drinker with depressive tendencies. - Montague Terrace. He became friends with Jonathon King when they discovered a mutual admiration of Jean Genet. Same source culled from King interviews on ADSoB. Solo might have been this artists middle name but pop stardom and isolation only fed his paranoia and alienation. At the height of Walkermania he had to don a crash helmet and goggles for the dash between his Jag and the door of the venue where he was playing, otherwise he would lose a lot of flesh and clothing to the the clawing fingernails of his fans. "Walker was stunned by the strength (an unintended hostility) of the fan's reaction; and, added to his already chronic stagefright, it led him to appear less and less, and to develop a severely paranoid state of mind." In a way, being solo only focussed more attention on him.

Par 14. This needs a little tweaking because the Scott TV series also featured his own and Brel compositions too. See www.scottwalker.org.uk for playlist.

Pars 15, 16 & 17. Walker's album 4 failed on the charts and he flopped management, record companies etc in these years.

Par 18 & 19. The choice of doing covers he has put down to his loss of confidence after Scott 4 and Till The Band Comes In failed to be noticed. To be Cont... Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

remove cleanup tag?

although i dont think work is finished on this article i DEFINATLY think it doesnt warrent a cleanup tag (with everything sectioned off nicely plus the infobox). does anyone else agree? or do you think that the tag may guide others to the site for minor tweakings? —(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 06:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)}

I'm unexpectedly caught up in RL for the moment and don't have time to review the latest contributions. IIRC you placed the cleanup tag? As such, if you want to remove it I won't oppose. FWIW a) I will be doing a sweep in a couple of days, and b) a cleanup tag isn't going to hurt the article, in fact it may draw more good contributors, but I definitely am not attached to keeping it, and since I haven't looked at the article in a couple or three days, I can't give an informed opinion. But IMO, the threshold for removal of the cleanup tag includes the following criteria: a) impeccable copyediting; b) concise, non-editorial, verifiable, non-POV prose; c) sources. If the article meets those criteria, then yeah, remove. Anchoress 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I say lift it.AH.

Moved continuation of references to section above.

Re: removing the cleanup tag; I just skimmed the first screen and there are still typos, so I'm changing my vote to 'no' for now. Anchoress 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What typos? Do you mean variants in spelling? I'm keeping to the English UK version of the dictionary spelling. Also The box about Walker at the top of the article has had the MOR and other additions partly reverted. Walker does not consider himself an experimentalist nor avant-garde artist. Direct comments to this effect. He is contemporary so I suggest contemporary/avant-garde as compromise. Also believe some mention of his Brel interpretations marks him out as unique. Andrew Hanos 210.11.113.219 08:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing reference notes: Par 20. The "brothers who never were" tag is explained above but the writer, Alan Freeman continues further- "there's always been a suggestion of the mysterious and unknown whenever I've listened to the Walker Brothers...yet all these very same qualities combined, surround Scott, John & Gary with suggestion of...ISOLATION!" Hence the line about mutual self-protection. Walker's reading of the zeitgeist in 1975 is spot on and a hit follows with No Regrets. It's not only about a love affair but the passing of an era and he captures what is in the wind. Is he doing this consciously, probably not, but that's another story...

Par 21. Lines has been described as more dynamic than their previous album and Scott regards it as their best single but it suffers from a downward fall of spritual confidence. It strikes minor chords, whereas HIS NO 1 HITS ARE ALL DOOMED BUT UPBEAT SQUARINGS WITH FATE, LOVE AND AND THE WHOLE DAMN THING. That is they are ready to move on after pain or anguish, not dwell on it. Aside from this Lines was in too minor a key to be heard over the then raucous sounds grinding their way through pop music at that moment. Walker was reacting to the zeitgeist, not evoking it in this record. He ended the album on a downbeat song, whereas he had a beautiful lilting tune and song of rejuvenation up his sleeve all the time. That is what is meant by his "choice" of non-commercial numbers.

To be Cont... Andrew Hanos210.11.64.209 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone is obviously checking my references and came across the Marc Almond quote from the boy child compilation. This is not the source of the original quote, I believe, and Marc is only repeating it. In any case, he is not an African American session player. Andrew Hanos210.11.64.209 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please revert this article. This edit is far too drastic and lacks coherence. Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 08:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:Re Scott Walker.

Dear Anchoress

I don't agree that these are personal points of view. The discussion page is where we have been discussing this article. I don't appreciate all this work being wiped at your whim. I don't like the editing style adopted. I don't get where you are coming from in a historic literary context, which is what encyclopedic writing is based on. I will revert the text if you don't respond why you think you know better than me how to write. You did not add anything positive to the discussion while the work was in progress except your last claim about typos. You then just wiped out all that work that has been worked over repeatedly and for which there are perfectly good references provided in the discussion page. The other editors appear mollified.

To begin with, you seem to mistake PPOV with impersonal observations. That is why you presumably took out the "reportorial" observation about Walker's early recordings. This shows you don't understand literary or conventional styles of writing in this genre. A reporter does not necessarily provide a personal point of view when he reports an observation or a record of an event as it would strike any unbiased observer. That is his role, to convey clear information and impressions. This is both a neutral POV and the basis of western historical writing going back to Herodotus and Thucydides. This a stylistic and philosphic manner(ism. Also, please don't fall into the trap of mistaking it for "original" material. It is impersonal observation that adds complexity to a report like this because it presents Walker in in another light from the general tone of the rest. It provides balance and depth. It also helps to avoid hagiography. If Karl Marx were once a devout little Jewish boy who sang regularly at Synagogue do you think that would not be a relevant fact to include in his bio?

What your edit is tending towards is reducing this report to a bland template. This is not the intent of encyclopedic writing, but one one for amateurs to hide behind. You are being officious, even if you don't intend it. This my considered courtesy response. Andrew Hanos.210.11.113.219 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry to see that your dilligent work on this article was wiped out without any reason given. Ive been away from wikipeida for a while and will likly continute to be (except sporatic visits like this) and so i am lost. Everything that you said above seems very reasonable to practice as a writing style for an article. Basically, the point of this comment is to implore Anchoress to rely and explain why he/she removed your edits for i find it very unlikly that it was for no reason.

ps. User:210.11.113.219 the refrences you placed in this talk page should be present in the article itself links or refrence footnotes (you may very well have deon this already since i havent thoughly looked at the article yet.

pps. again to User:210.11.113.219, i REAAAAAALY suggest signing up to wikipeida with a real username. but thats likely just my personal views against anonymous editing. and by that, i dont mean stop editing annoymously, i just feel that it segregatesyerself from the "wikipeida community". anyhoo. ta ta. im gonna go read the article now. —(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 03:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)}

:Re Scott Walker.

You know, this article is certainly informative, but it STILL reads like a (at best) a Scott Walker press release or (at worse) fawning fan gushing.

Don't you think?

Style

This is a lovely, wonderful page, beautifully written. It is absolutely non-wikipedian. So what. It's about an artist, duh. It's possible to be too reductive. I kind of like having this wiki-contrarian page in here. I'm not a Scott fan and got onto him only because of his profound influence on Billy MacKenzie of the Associates. But this page seems to match, in writing, the layers, complexity and intensity of Scott's musical donation, which one can certainly appreciate without being a fan. olompali

Thanks for the above encouragement. As for the "gushing" crit- really? Are you unsubtle? As I explained to Anchoress there are many ways to skin a cat and express bigraphical material. It depends how well read you are, and surely Wikipedia can and should encompass the full range of styles in its articles. As you say, it is informative, but what else can you ask for? If you are not an established critic how can you make negative comment or reproduce it without reference to sustained rigorous standards. If you actually knew the material on Walker you would see that there is no serious criticism of him, except on the level of pop gossip. But as the article makes clear he does not see himself in that category, and almost universally all current critics agree. There is, in fact, subtle criticisms of the tensions between his artistic persona and pop persona, and his apparent inability to balance these with his enormous artistic ego and aims, especially in mid career, in this article. Scott Walker probably burned the Walker Brothers, the group that actually provided the comfortable nest from which that incredible artist, Noel Scott Engel, emerged and was able to thrive for sustained periods, in the public eye. Without the Walkers, Scott solo is unimaginable, at least in my estimation. However, without pre-existing research or published material on this aspect of the subject to base it on, how can this be fleshed out, especially given Wikipedia's policy on original material. I have, if you examine this article carefully, without being slavish tried to respect wikipedian laws, and attempted to use subtlety, as olompali has, I suspect, picked up, to convey an accurate arc of Walker's career. Andrew Hanos§144.138.196.124 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wilfully opinionated

This is a poor article, not necessarily because of inaccuracies (although there are those too: for example the monastery Walker retreated to was not in France but on the Isle of Wight) but because it reads like a fan's love letter, not an encyclopedia article. Not only is it wildly opinionated, it is perversely opinionated. The author must be about the only person alive who thinks Walker's schlock cover albums of the lost, drunken years display maturity bordering on genius. The author spends an inordinate amount of time on these and the Walker Brothers' dud cover album Lines, only to skip over the work that most critics see as truly critical and influential. He has nothing to say about Walker's groundbreaking tracks on Nite Flights, for example, covered by David Bowie among others. Just about every album description is perverse. How in hell is Scott 4 'bare' and 'demystified'? It's lushly orchestral, and the lyrics are Scott at his most mystic! I really don't have the time to totally rewrite this article, throwing out every perversely subjective description, but I hope someone does.

Hmmm... I'll answer this anonymous bit of vitriol when I have some time. But at first glance it strikes me as a "highly opiniated" bit of sour grapes. Walker was never popular for Nite Flights. Some critics and opiniated ranter s like this try to make out these four songs are some sort of career highlight when in fact they are nothing but a continuum of Walker's earlier song writing. This article must reflect what Walker is famous for and not only why some critics love him now. Andrew Hanos203.0.237.32 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It could definitely do with a cleanup, and the silly stuff should be summarily removed. Please feel free to do so. I've removed the cleanup tag, though, because despite its fannish tone this isn't such a bad old article, and it's not a good idea for Wikipedia to intrude stuff about Wikipedia into the articles without a very good reason. --Rose Palmer 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rose and all,

First to some of the latest criticism:

There are 9 shortish pars on the Walker Bros era and 24 on Scott's solo career, which I have updated. That seems a reasonably equitable reflection of Scott's career for the production of 6 Walker Bros albums against 14 solo albums. Scott has stated that the Walkers were the "start of everything". I will state categorically that without that start we may have never had a Scott Walker in the form we do today. There is no emphasis placed here on the Walkers era or the country albums, they are all part of the continuum of the evolution of a great artist, who happens to be also a top performer like Sinatra, or Tony Bennett, and like them occupied a pop star status for a while. Walker has tried to launch his artistic career from that flimsy pedestal a number of times and turned away from the popular singer, cult personality and other marketable personas repeatedly. In fact you could almost analyze him that the first whiff of success brings out paranoia in him that he is being typecast, or railroaded into being inauthentic. This is what Scott Engel got from Sartre, a dread of the inauthentic.

The nameless critic above who accuses me of perversity is like that small minority of inverted snobs who believe that Walker is important because David Bowie says so. Having been raised in the genuine sixties when real originality and star power were all over the pop medium, from Elvis, Dusty, the Beatles and a plethora of other great groups, the Walkers among them, this strikes me as genuinely misinformed and pretentiously perverse. (David is of course a very talented man who worships the Walker Brothers as real pop stars, a fact he has attested to in his own visual, written and musical homages.) So no, Scott Walker the composer does not begin at Nite Flights, as seminal and significant as that record is in his current development.

Genius doesn't stop at being genius, in Walker's case, when he stops recording his own songs. Walker had in any case exhausted his brand of narcissistic self-exploration by Scott 4. The caterpillar turned into a butterfly, then died, and something else was born again from the final flap of its wings- a full-bore hurricane. That's what we have in Scott Walker today. I'm writing as a critic, not a fan. I can't write about this in detail in wikipedia because it would be original, so the latter part of Scott's work is described in a sketchy and dry manner simply to comply with house restrictions. I haven't found any profound analysis or writing about his recent development that fits easily into this format. There has by now been a reasonable amount of speculation to distill the comments on the earlier part of his career.

Finally, o anonymous one- "mystify" does not mean the same as "mystical", although they may appear on the same page in the dictionary. Scott 4 is demystified and bare because it strips the persona of Scott Walker naked. It sheds the lonely image that sold hundreds of thousands of records. Yes, Scott 4 is mystical, and political and angry and also life affirming.

Andrew Hanos210.11.113.219 07:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of early Scott Walker (I can bore for England regarding the supremacy of Montague Terrace (in Blue)) but would have to comment that this article does not do the man or Wikipedia justice, IMO. He is referred to by the first name in many places, and the language borders on the sycophantic. Unsourced and unreferenced adjectives are commonplace, and there is a distinct lack of citations regarding the interpretations of the styles, moods, genres, influences of the various albums. The article at present would be ideal for a fansite or webpage, but it does not come close to an encyclopedic entry. I see that there has already been some discussion regarding the language and/or style used in this article, so I am going to make these comments as an indication of how an admirer of the mans work is disappointed with the quality of the article. Sorry. LessHeard vanU 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be a huge fan but a lousy reader. The accusation that the article is fawning: your example is to cite the over-use of his first name- Scott, is a product of your imagination, and non-sensical when discussing an artist, especially a pop artist whose first name is his brand, and the ambivalence noted about his identity and success when he uses another. It would be like criticising me for using the name Byron, or Elvis, when writing of them. In any case the name Scott is not overused and used to differentiate him from other Walkers when necessary. Similarly, being a fan of the early Scott Walker doesn't qualify for any superior knowledge of a career lasting over 40 years. (Montague Terrace (in Blue)) was composed and perfomed 40 years ago.) The facts and commentary on Walker and his subsequent career are modest in tone and understated. If you read the discussion you will find most are referenced.

I have removed the spurious claim that Walker was born in Canada. It is no good reporting this as a possibility. Find the fact and then report it. Every piece of information I have read over 40 years has presented him as an American; facts like press reports of his campaigning for Bobby Kennedy amongst expatriate Americans in London in 1968.

Andrew Hanos203.0.237.32 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation tag

Please remove the citation tag and read the discussion thoroughly before posting again. Everything in this article is sourced. The history is meticulous.

Andrew Hanos203.0.237.32 08:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. There are no sources actually. There are a list of external links, if that's what you mean by "meticulous." This is a terrible article, full of fancruft and POV statements. Freshacconci 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if i'm putting this in the right place or not but i think its worth mentioning that the album "Drift" is included in art forums best of 2007 issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.209.109 (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Major reworking

I've removed a great deal of POV statements in what was obviously someone's original essay on Walker. This still needs major work and I will be inviting other editors to come in and help, since this has been left untouched for a long time. Please note: I removed items that were clearly opinion and violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Do not restore them and please carefully read those wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Freshacconci 09:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scott Walker Tilt.jpg

Image:Scott Walker Tilt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scott Walker - Scott.jpg

Image:Scott Walker - Scott.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scott Walker - Scott 4.jpg

Image:Scott Walker - Scott 4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scott Walker - Scott 3.jpg

Image:Scott Walker - Scott 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scott Walker - Scott 2.jpg

Image:Scott Walker - Scott 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scott Walker - The Drift.jpg

Image:Scott Walker - The Drift.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

new interview

This new guardian interview could be used to expand and reference the article. I'll look to make improvements soon. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)