Talk:The Basement Tapes/Archive 1

Archive 1

References

It seems to me that the two recent additions to ==External links== are actually citations of sources used in the writing of the article and should be in a ==References== section. External links should be to sites that expand the material available in the article. It is possible for a link to appear in both sections. —Theo (Talk) 18:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither one of them is a source for the additional material -- much of the information added can be found in the Marcus book; some of it is sourced from UseNet discussions and various Dylan- or music-related message boards. Some of the latter sources are, like many net-located sources, transient; as was, no doubt, the immediate source for the pre-existing comment about bootlegs being sold on Ebay. Now the two cited pages will probably be among the references for the related "Basement Tape" article, which I'm working on yet. . . Monicasdude 20:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Motorcycle Crash

This Basement Tapes articel says that Dylan was taken to the hospital after his motorcycle crash. The Bob Dylan article specifically says that he was NOT taken to the hospital. Can anyone cite any supporting facts either way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed what I believe is incorrect information. There is no known record of a hospital visit after the crash. Mick gold (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Both Basement Tapes articles need serious editing, why not merge them into one good, concise article?

This Basement Tapes album needs serious editing in that there there are no footnotes showing what information comes from where, so it comes across as one big lump of unreferenced information. There is a fair amount of overlap between the content of this article and The Basement Tapes (Sessions) article. The Basement Tapes (Sessions) article needs a lot of clean-up as well in that it has many unreferenced and subjective (unencyclopedic) statements. I don't think every track needs to be listed in The Basement Tapes (Sessions) article. So I propose that we could merge the two articles and have information about some (not all) of the unreleased songs in the Basement Tapes album page (as indeed there already is) and scrap the Basement Tapes (Sessions) article. And while we're at it we could clean up the Basement Tapes album page to make a really great article about both the album and the sessions. Moisejp (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Moisejp is right. The Basement Tapes (Sessions) and The Basement Tapes should be merged. It makes no sense to have 2 separate articles. I agree that The Basement Tapes could be expanded and The Basement Tapes (Sessions) should be scrapped. The new article could be structured around the following themes:

1. The background - the motorbike crash and re-grouping in Woodstock

2. The recording sessions: what is known about the 107 (?) songs recorded

3. The artists who recorded the songs: The Byrds, The Band, Julie Driscoll, Manfred Mann etc. Plus the 'official' album release from CBS in 1975.

4. The aftermath: the bootlegs, The Genuine Basement Tapes, Greil Marcus's Invisible Republic.

Mick gold (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No keep them seperate. Both can be cleaned up but I think they ought to be seperate articles. 130.108.192.246 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great if The Basement Tapes (Sessions) actually gets cleaned up, but who is going to do it? There have been notices on that page for months and no one has stepped forward to fix it. There are still no citations showing where any of the information comes from, and there are still lots of subjective statements (e.g. "Don't You Try Me Now": "a rather undeveloped original. With some more work it would stand as a fine Basement Tapes original.") On the other hand, if we did merge the two pages, I would take it onto myself to ensure that all "Sessions"-related information on The Basement Tapes page was cited and objective, and we could have a good, concise treatment of the Sessions that follows Wikipedia's standards. Moisejp (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moisejp. All the info in The Basement Tapes (Sessions) could be incorporated into The Basement Tapes article. It serves no purpose to have two separate articles. Anonymous editor 130.108.192.246 does not offer a single reason to support his/her opinion. Mick gold (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Basement Tapes & The Basement Tapes (Sessions)

The Basement Tapes (Sessions) has now been redirected to The Basement Tapes by RHaworth. You can find move in his Archive on 14 December 2008. [[1]]. All the material can now be found here: [[2]]. To include this very long list in the main article might destabilise it. It occurred to me it could be useful as a secondary article, perhaps entitled: List of Basement Tapes songs. The problem with the two articles was that they seemed to duplicate each other. But I think to have a separate article as a List is valid. What do others think? Mick gold (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now set up what used to The Basement Tapes (sessions) as List of Basement Tapes songs. This material should be cleaned up & footnoted, but I think it's a useful adjunct to the main article. Mick gold (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Working towards GA

I propose before we get started that we knock around some ideas about what information we want to include and how we want to organize this. As Mick gold has pointed out [3], this topic presents certain challenges. Here are just a few of my thoughts about what we can do (maybe I'll come up with some more later):

1. I loved in The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan how we wrote a paragraph or two about each song, each with its own heading. On one hand, I'd be tempted to do that again here, but I think the 24 songs on TBT (as opposed to the 13 on FW) may be too many—what do people think? The next obvious option would be to include info in table form. Currently there is info in table form, but it is spread out over eight tables—it'd be nice to compress all that into one table. Maybe in the Notes section of the table we could fit in a couple of sentences giving key info about each song, a mini-version of what we did for the FW songs. I don't know if we necessarily have to include all the instruments played by each musician, as the current tables do (although we could), but we would I'm sure want to mention which ones are believed to have been recorded where, which ones had overdubs, etc.
   

I have to take a break from writing this, and attend to some stuff, but I will try to add some more ideas soon. Moisejp (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Another thought I had is that we should choose one version of Greil Marcus's book and as much as possible try to limit our mentions and references to just the one. My copy is the 1998 Picador printing of Invisible Republic, but of course some people will have Old, Weird America. I'm not sure which one it's better to refer to, but let's decide on one. Moisejp (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking we should write a para on each song. This could include the material on who played what, when recorded, if there were overdubs, which you have already put into the table. In the case of Dylan, there's plenty of material in Marcus's Invisible Republic and Heylin's Revolution In the Air. Sid Griffin also useful. There's probably less material on The Band's recordings but we can probably put something together. I can look at Hoskyns's Across the Great Divide. The table format was a good idea for the Outtakes on FW, when we didn't want to get bogged down in secondary material, but I think these songs need more substantive commentary if we're going to go for GA.

As for our versions of Marcus, I've got the first edition of Invisible Republic, Picador, 1997, which is probably same as yours. In my copy, the Discography chapter begins on p. 232. Is that the same for you, Moisejp? Mick gold (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't me who put all that info into a table. My last batch of heavy editing on this article was in Feb-March 2008, wow, already two years gone by now, and a lot of editors have worked on it since. But I'm glad you agree we should write a para on each song. I'd really like to try that, as I'm sure we could find some interesting stuff to say about all of them. I just hope the article doesn't get too long with 24 songs to talk about. But let's damn the torpedoes and give it a shot! I'm really not happy with the tables that are in the article now.

Yes, I have the same edition of Invisible Republic as you, with Discography beginning on page 232. OK, let's go with that one, and I am going to track down the page numbers of all the Old, Weird citations in IR and change them to that. Moisejp (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I'm thinking this paragraph doesn't belong in the lead:

The sleeve notes were written by Greil Marcus, in which he compared Dylan's compositions to what he termed "the most mysterious songs" in American culture, Elvis Presley's "Mystery Train" and Robert Johnson's "Love in Vain". In his subsequent book Invisible Republic Marcus expanded his interpretation of these songs in order to link them to the world of pre-war traditional music Harry Smith compiled on his Anthology of American Folk Music.[6]

I would leave the mention of Greil Marcus' sleeve notes, but I think the long list of "mysterious songs" is inappropriate for the lead, which is intended to briefly summarize the subject. It would do much better in a "themes" section. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally! I also thought we needed to get rid of that from the lead. Moisejp (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The lead needs a total re-think. I've already mentioned [4] that I think it is not right to say: "The Dylan LP, a critically-acclaimed departure from the surrealist rock and roll he had recently pioneered on his milestone trio of albums from 1965 and 1966, was as much of a shock to his fans as were those records to his earlier folk audience."

The album that transformed Dylan into a country artist was JWH (1968), followed by NS (1969). When The Basement Tapes was released in 1975, there was dismay that the album did not contain "I Shall Be Released" or "Mighty Quinn", two of the most famous songs from the TBT - both as cover versions and as circulating bootlegs. The first the public knew of these songs was when cover versions by Julie Driscoll, Manfred Mann, & The Byrds went into the charts in 1968, also the release of Music From Big Pink in 1968, followed by the bootleg album Great White Wonder in 1969. Articles by Marcus hinted at the scale of what TBT amounted to as a collection of over 100 recordings. I think the lead should say something about the circumstances in which TBT songs were recorded, something about the nature of the songs, and crucially something about the odd form that this collection of material took on its official release in 1975. I think by next weekend I'll have time to draft something. Mick gold (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've drafted a new lead. Moisejp, would you be happy to start to break both the track listings and the Side One Notes [5], Side Two Notes etc etc into song by song paragraphs as we did on FW? It seems unnecessary to have two lists of tracks. I'll have a go if I have time. Mick gold (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Band

I've just looked at Griffin's Million Dollar Bash, Barney Hoskyns's Across The Great Divide, Shelton's No Direction Home, and Sounes's Down The Highway. All these books refer to the group as The Band in the middle of a sentence. Mick gold (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about other group names? Would you always capitalize The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Who in the middle of a sentence? Well, anyways, it's just a matter of style. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends not capitalizing "the" before band names, and for me having an unitalicized "The" in the middle of a sentence looks especially strange. But there are lots of different styles in the world for various orthographic conventions, and what's strange for one person is perfectly normal for another. So I'll concede on this one and try hard to ignore all the big Ts! Moisejp (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I've just looked at the WP:FA on The Beatles and that group is capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The article on The Who is also capitalized in the middle of a sentence. I think The Beatles and The Who always included the definite article in their album titles, their record labels and their graphics, whereas Pink Floyd and Cream did not. So I would definitely query The Cream and The Pink Floyd! Thanks for your agreement. Mick gold (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Heylin at least calls them "the Band" with a small t. I think the big T convention may be more common (though not exclusive) in the UK, while the small t may be more common in North America. Moisejp (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, and I was not aware it was more prevalent in UK. One thing I can say in favor of The Band is that Greil Marcus capitalizes them in his sleeve notes to TBT. best Mick gold (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, I believe, a lower case "t" is used when the band's name does not officially include "the", e.g. Ramones or Buffalo Springfield, which would be written with lower-case ts. For The Beatles, The Who, etc., an uppercase t is used. Let me check the MoS and see if this is true. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not well documented in the MoS, but I believe this is the accepted standard on Wikipedia. I'll look for more examples. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Some critics"

"The format of the 1975 album has led some critics to query the omission of some of Dylan's best known 1967 compositions". --- sources are needed for this statement—although "some critics" are mentioned in the lead, I find no appearance of them in the main article. Any idea where a review mentioning the omissions can be found? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got round to writing the detailed critical commentary on the CBS 1975 album. When I get round to it, I'll quote from Shelton, Heylin, and Gray who all make this point. Mick gold (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Songs and structure

Hi Moisejp, I.M.S., anyone else, would you like to make a start on laying out the article so that there is a song by song breakdown as we achieved on FW (& as I.M.S. demonstrated on TVGPS [6]). I have a lot of critical info from Heylin, Sounes, Gray, Shelton et al to input into each song but it would be wonderful if someone made a start on the structure. I imagine the song by song breakdown could include the personnel/instrumentation info and recording location info that is already present in table form in TBT article. I'll spend today trying to sharpen up and substantiate the critical commentary on the album, as mentioned above. Mick gold (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've set up a structure for you, Mick gold. I hope that's the kind of idea you were thinking. I'll try to help you get started on actually writing paragraphs about each song, within this structure, but may not have time before this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks M. Good stuff! I'd forgotten how interesting The Basement Tapes were. Mick gold (talk)

Do people want to keep "surpassing Patti Smith's Horses, Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run, Dylan's own Blood on the Tracks, and Neil Young's Tonight's the Night, the #2, 3, 4 and 5 ranking albums, respectively"? I always thought it was kind of trivial and going out of its way to bring attention to other important albums that are not necessarily related at all to The Basement Tapes. But if other people are partial to this sentence, we could keep it. Moisejp (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mick gold, I'm a little concerned this line: "Interviewed on the radio by Mary Travers, he seemed to regard the work as a kind of musical therapy" may sound subjective and verge on original research. Any way to reword that?

Maybe we can add something from this quote from Heylin's Recording Sessions somewhere: "Sadly, when this material was finally released in 1975, Robbie Robertson seemed determined to present a sleight of hand as the truth. Intermingling eight songs by the Band supposedly cut in the fall of 1967, Robertson sought to imply that the alliance between Dylan and the Band was far more equal than it was: 'Hey, we were writing all these songs, doing our own thing, oh and Bob would sometimes come around and we'd swap a few tunes.' In fact, the so-called Band basement tapes have nothing to do with the Dylan/Band sessions." It's strong sentiments that reflects, well, strong criticism of that aspect of the album. On the other hand, Griffin doesn't seem bothered at all by the deception, and is glad about the inclusion of the Band songs. We could add a quote by Griffin for balance so not all opinions about this are negative. I wonder if the Robertson quote ("Robertson has explained that he, Hudson, and Dylan did not have access to all the Basement Tape songs known to be in existence. "We had access to some of the songs. Some of these things came under the heading of 'homemade' which meant a Basement Tape to us." Robertson has suggested that the Basement Tapes are, for him, "a process, a homemade feel" and so could include recordings from a wide variety of sources.") should be moved to Legacy as an answer to these complaints, as it definitely ties in with that. I don't know, it's just an idea. Anyway, I may not have time to add this before the weekend, or if someone else is inspired to before, that's cool too. Moisejp (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the other albums on the Village Voice list so I've dropped them. The thought about unfinished therapy came from Heylin so I've attributed it. I think your quote from Heylin's Recording Sessions is a good idea. And you can balance it with a quote from Griffin, as you suggest. Also your suggestion of moving Robertson's quote to the Legacy section, as an answer to that criticism is a good one. I thought of altering the structure of article so that it follows what we did on FW. First the description of the recording situation, then the detailed accounts of the tracks, then the Release section, then the Legacy section. I liked the way Legacy followed from the account of the Release in FW, but let me know if you don't agree. Mick gold (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we should start separating the CBS release into subsections (release, critical response, etc.). Perhaps "Legacy" should be in a section all to itself, as opposed to just being a subsection for the CBS release. The Basement sessions themselves have quite a legacy to talk about, and we could elaborate on how they formed the foundation of subsequent albums by Dylan and The Band, as the lead notes. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Legacy is in a section all to itself, it isn't a subsection of CBS release. Am I mistaken? Mick gold (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooops... Mick gold was up to something since I last looked at the article. [7]. Thanks for pointing that out. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

When we start writing about the individual songs, why don't we create subsections within subsections for the personnel on each song? Like this:

• =="Bessie Smith"==
• ===Personnel===

Actually, strike that. I'm starting to think this whole personnel thing is a confusing mess; why don't we simplify it further by making a small list at the bottom of the page, along these lines:

• Person A: electric bass on A1, B1; organ on A5, C4, C7 ...
• Person B: guitar on A1, B2, C4, D2, D4; bass on ...
• Person C: piano on A3
• Person D: drums on all tracks ...

That would save us a lot of room by eliminating those unwieldy and repetitive lists. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think the personnel & recording details look clear and simple as currently laid out. TBT is a complex album with different instruments played & different locations and this info for each track is, I think, clearer than a list of personnel at bottom. best Mick gold (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I'm still frustrated about a list after every subsection. Perhaps these will be worked into the text as we write detailed descriptions for each of the songs. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you're unhappy about personnel details, maybe there's something wrong with me but I think it looks fine & makes composition of TBT clear. If we ever get round to writing detailed account of Blonde On Blonde, we'd have to address the personnel on each track which varies. Mick gold (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If we were to choose two or three sound samples, what would be suitable tracks to use? Perhaps one to represent the original sessions with Dylan, like YAGN (which is moderately well known), and another for The Band's later additions from 1975, such as "Bessie Smith" or "Don't Ya Tell Henry". - I.M.S. (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

YAGN has that overdubbed lead guitar. I like Apple Suckling Tree as a basic, funky basement sound or Open The Door. Don't Ya Tell Henry would be a good pick for 1975. Mick gold (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A few small issues and ideas:

• This passage in New Compositions needs to be attributed to someone or other so that it doesn't sound subjective and like original research: "One of the startling qualities of the Basement Tapes was the simple, down to earth sound. The basement songs were recorded during the summer of 1967, "the summer of love", the summer that The Beatles released their most sophisticated and ambitious album, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Moisejp (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  

I can rewrite it so it has some ref/cite in it. One thing I have been wondering about is I've written quite a lot of articles about Bob Dylan which have been published in various magazine. I reviewed The Basement Tapes when the album came out in 1975 for the magazine Let It Rock. My articles have been published online at the website Rock's Backpages [8] including the Basement review [9]. Would it be legitimate to quote from those reviews in this article? Rock's Backpages is a subscription website, so the ref could be cited online, but you could only read the full article if you were a subscriber. Mick gold (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere you are allowed to quote yourself if it is done in a neutral way, but it might be an idea to double check before proceeding. I can't remember where in the Policies I think I saw that, it was a while ago. I'm not sure if it'd be better to cite the subscription website or just directly the original magazine. Let It Rock, that's quite a cool title! Moisejp (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• In Early recordings, we have this R. Robertson quote: "He'd come up with something like 'Royal Canal,' and you'd say, 'This is so beautiful! The expression!'" but we haven't mentioned anything yet about any song called "[The Banks of the] Royal Canal" so anyone who is not familiar with the song or the Basement Tape bootlegs will not catch the reference. My idea is to include an [a 1]-type reference here spelling out what song is being referred to, and giving a couple of references (Heylin/Marcus/Griffin) that it is one of the 107 known Basement tracks. Unless anyone has a better idea, I'll go ahead with that in my next editing session. Moisejp (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  

Good idea. I've written a note on "Banks Of The Roayl Canal", referencing Derek Barker's book which has a good account of the song and its history. Mick gold (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Mick gold, I think this has come up before perhaps in the editing of the Bob Dylan article, but I guess you and I are using completely different editions of Shelton. Sometime before we put this up for GA (doesn't have to be immediately, and may in fact be more efficient to wait until we're close to done everything), let's go through each Shelton citation and make sure the page numbers are consistent with a single edition. Moisejp (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, we should standardise our Shelton references. I've still got my hardback which I bought when it was published in 1986. I knew Robert Shelton a little, he spent years living in South London desperately trying to finish this book which was eagerly awaited. Mick gold (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's cool you knew Robert Shelton. You knew Robert, he knew Dylan, so you were only two degrees of separation from Bob! Moisejp (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've added http://acclaimedmusic.net/ to the references. So far I have only used it for the Virgin Encyclopedia of Popular Music's rating of TBT but there are, for example, lots of Best-of lists, etc. that we could use to supplement the lonely Rolling Stone ranking we have now. I.M.S. says that this appears to be an accepted source in Wikipedia. But the only thing is you have to navigate yourself within the site to the Basement Tapes page—there are no specific links for each album's page. Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea for the "Royal Canal" quote. As to acclaimedmusic.net, it does appear to be widely used across Wikipedia, and although it might be challenged by some, I have used it as a ref on FAs in the past without resistance. User:SilkTork said this to me: "... it is generally accepted that if a site is well respected and well run, and other reliable sources use it, then it would be considered acceptable. I found three books which use the site: [10]." After discussing posting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, he continues: "From my reading of the site, the guy is taking his information purely from reliable sources. I would say that it is reliable. ... - SilkTork, 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)" (diff). If anyone challenges it, I would argue that its use as a source in the books show in that Google search establishes reliability. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

More small concerns and ideas:

• I really wonder if the Track listing section is needed. The song lengths doesn't seem like crucial info to me, and could be cut. Then if we put the songwriting credits along with the personnel (and 16 of the songs were written by Dylan only, so "All songs written by Bob Dylan except where noted" could cover those ones) we'll have the same info as what is in the Track listing section now. Moisejp (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at 5 FAs about albums: Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Thriller, Year Zero, Loveless. They all feature track listings near the end of the article, so it seems to be a conventional element of these articles. Also, I think it is a useful summary of the contents of the album, away from the more detailed discographical & critical apparatus. So I would favour keeping it. Mick gold (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, that's fine, then. Moisejp (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• It'd be really nice if we could attribute this information to some source: "On March 31, 2009, Legacy Records issued a remastered version of the original 1975 Basement Tapes double-album. This two CD set in digipak packaging reproduced the original liner notes by Greil Marcus. No bonus tracks or additional essays or information were added to the original packaging, despite the 34 years of scholarship and research on this album since its initial release." Except for the "Legacy" part, the first sentence is mentioned on the "Basement Tapes" page of bobdylan.com, so that's no problem. But, yeah, if we could have a reference for the other two sentences it'd be super. I've been looking online for reviews of the 2009 remastered CD, but so far no luck with finding anything about that. Moisejp (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Even not just as a reference for those two sentences, I thought it'd be useful to find some reviews of the 2009 remaster for whatever insight to it that they may provide. So far I haven't found much—there really must be a lot more out there, but haven't had luck finding it. Here are a couple of legitimate-looking reviews I have found [11], [12] and maybe [13]. There may or may not be insight we can glean from these, but if anyone can find any other reviews in reliable sources, that'd be dandy. Moisejp (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence that you were querying, Moisejp, ("No bonus tracks or additional essays or information were added to the original packaging, despite the 34 years of scholarship and research on this album since its initial release.") because I think it's a red herring. Columbia reissued 15 Dylan albums in SACD & improved quality in 2003. There were no additional tracks or new critical essays on any of those albums. They've obviously decided to retain the original format of each album - which I think is fair enough - so there's nothing surprising about the Legacy reissues of TBT, imho. 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I like what you did with the two sources I provided—I was thinking something along those lines too, but didn't get a chance to think about it concretely. I also liked how you separated off the bottom part of the Legacy. I was also thinking it should be separated in some way. I've changed the title (though it can still be up for discussion, b/c mine isn't necessarily perfect either) and have tried moving the Tree With Roots info up with GWW. Moisejp (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see what you’re suggesting. I think I would recommend keeping the Dwarf demos & GWW together as a section (without TWR) because they are the ways in which Dylan’s songs reached the public in the late 1960s – through demos & through bootlegs. They exist as a section prior to the 1975 release. TWR very much rounds off the whole story in the 1990s by finally making all the material available to the public. For me, it feels right at the end of the article along with the Legacy and the later additions. Please say if you disagree strongly. thanks Mick gold (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. I think before I felt uncomfortable lumping TWR with the official later Dylan and Band BT track releases. But I think that was partly because at the time the section's title was a bit awkward. But I like the new title you've given the section. Moisejp (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Personnel credits from Sid Griffin's Million Dollar Bash: Bob Dylan, the Band, and the Basement Tapes, as referenced below. Some of this conflicts with other sources, such as the liner notes to The Band: A Musical History, but this is the latest research effort as of 2008." I think we need to to work on this part more. Even though no one believes the Musical History liner notes saying that "Bessie Smith," "Ain't No More Cane" and "Don't Ya Tell Henry" were recorded sometime between 1967 and 1968 (see [14]), these liner notes are nonetheless the most official word we have on the songs. We need somehow to qualify somehow why Griffin's (and Heylin's and whoever else who has disputed the "official" story of the songs) point of view is more relevant than the official one. Or we need to present both sides and give as much emphasis as we can (without "taking sides") to the 1975 recording theory. I'm going to try to give this more thought in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• According to this: [[15]] (scroll down to 28 Oct 2005) a Basement Tapes recording exists of "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" with Dylan singing lead. We could possibly include this info in either this article or in List of Basement Tapes songs. This link seems to say that the performance is also mentioned in the liner notes for The Band's A Musical HIstory. Does anyone have that box set and can confirm this mention? For me, searchingforagem.com is a very reliable source, and I personally consult it very often, but other editors may not agree, so if we could cite A Musical History's liner notes instead it'd be all the better. Moisejp (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Katie's Been Gone

The article says that "Katie's Been Gone" was recorded in Woodstock. Griffin on pages 250 and 297 seems to say this (although the third sentence about KBG on page 297 I find totally confusing and I'm not sure what he means there). However, this is contradicted by at least two sources: [16] and [17]. (Hoskyns in particular I believe is a respected Band biographer.) I don't know who is wrong or right, but we may have to mention that different sources give different info and not say cut-and-dried that it was recorded at such-and-such a location and time. (This is one of the challenges we knew we were going to face when we took on this article, in that the information available about where and when songs were recorded is often contradictory or incomplete.)

Griffin notes that the version of KBG on TBT is the same performance as the bonus track version on the 2000 Music From Big Pink remaster, but he doesn't get into much detail. However, I'd like to quote from this reviewer, who does offer more details [18]:

"We might as well settle this issue right here and now. Whatever you may think of the double album entitled The Basement Tapes released by Columbia Records in 1975, it's now quite apparent that the eight Band-only tracks from that set were certainly not recorded in the basement of Big Pink, and in at least some cases were not even "demos," but rather were full studio recordings considered for official release on Music From Big Pink or subsequent albums. Though these songs may well have been written and arranged in Woodstock in 1967, it's a bit dishonest to suggest (as the Basement Tapes album does) that the recordings are akin to those laid down by Dylan and the four remaining Hawks in the Big Pink basement.

This is the same version of "Katie's Been Gone" that appears on The Basement Tapes, but in stereo and with improved sound quality beyond what the remastering process alone would provide. The cat's out of the bag: "Katie" and the other Band-only tracks on The Basement Tapes must have been intentionally muddied in the studio in 1975 so that they would fit better alongside the Dylan material recorded in the basement with a home reel-to-reel."

I think this is a really important criticism of TBT that I would like to include, but the Legacy section is already getting so long. Maybe we can split the section up into more sub-sections and have one sub-section focus specifically on the Band tracks and overdubs. Moisejp (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a bit about "Katie's Been Gone" (I haven't gotten to changing anything about where it may have been recorded yet)—if anyone is inspired to copyedit this, though, feel free, as I'm not totally happy with the level of smoothness of what I wrote.

In the process of my editing, I somewhat drastically changed the arrangement of the info in the Legacy section. This was just an attempt to better organize it, but as always I'm happy to compromise or try to come up with other solutions, if my edits are not deemed to have helped the article. Moisejp (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Themes, Criticism, Legacy, Katie's Been Gone

Hi Moisejp, thanks for all your work tidying up the references. I'm puzzled by some of the new sub-headings. For example, it seems to me the main point of the Gray quote is that TBT is the crucial transition from BoB to JWH. The line about the missing songs is one sentence. To place this long Gray quote under the heading "Exclusion of key Dylan songs" looks odd.

Shouldn't the material about KBG be under the sub-heading for that song? A specific controversy about the reissue of this song leads to a broader question about the nature of The Band's material on the 1975 album.

I'd like to write more material about where TBT stands in the history of rock. Critics have made the point that the direction that Dylan and The Band went in 1967 was so radically different from what The Beatles, The Stones, The Doors et al were up to in that year, that they changed the direction of rock music. This has something to do with the legacy of the album. I hope that Legacy can add up to a sense of the album's significance, not just the opinions of Bragg and Costello. Critics have seen the way The Beatles recorded the Get Back sessions as a response to TBT and MFBP. I hope to get round to this in next few days, and maybe think about all 3 subheadings - Criticism, Themes, Legacy. Mick gold (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mick gold. I don't feel necessarily strongly about any of the changes I made. Part of the reason I did make the changes is that the Legacy section seemed kind of long and I had trouble following the overall message of the section. I thought that if we broke it up into subsections it'd make it easier to catch the main point of each part. One option would be to use different subsections, if my ones don't work for you. Or else go back to without subsections but try to make the overall text possibly more concise or clearer. As you say, I also considered adding the KBG beef to the song's section. But I feel the issue of KBG is deeper than just one song, it reflects the dishonesty of the inclusion of the Band songs. By muddying down KBG so that it wouldn't sound like a studio recording Robertson and whoever else was making decisions were deliberately going out of their way to pass the eight songs off as Woodstock recordings. So for me, it ties in very much with the Heylin quote about Robertson seeking to imply that the alliance was more equal than it was, and to some degree, to Griffin's defense of the inclusion of ANMK and DYTH. For me it'd be slightly odd, possibly, to address this dishonesty in the KBG section and then bring it up again as a "new discussion" in Legacy. But if we worked on the wording, maybe we could make it work, if you want to try moving the KBG muddying down issue to the KBG section. Moisejp (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point about TBT influencing Get Back would be a good thing to mention. I think it's in Griffin that it talks about how Dylan and the Band's recording method of standing in a circle so everyone could see everyone else influenced groups from the Beatles to U2. About the headings, if we do decide to separate Criticism from Legacy, maybe we wouldn't even need the Criticism subheadings I made, if you don't feel comfortable with them. But again, if you have other ideas for organizing these sections, or want to try to make the original organization work, I'm very happy to see what we can do with your ideas. Moisejp (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for message. I agree with your point that Legacy section had become lengthy and lacking in focus. It's a good way to make progress to discuss other ways of organising info. Mick gold (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Acclaimedmusic

After a lot of digging around, I've located an individual page for TBT on acclaimedmusic.net. Here: http://acclaimedmusic.net/Current/A335.htm - I.M.S. (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking that down, I.M.S.! Moisejp (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How are we doin'?

I've re-jigged sections on Criticism, Themes and Legacy, after Moisejp's innovatory changes, and I feel happy with the way these sections look. I've done quite a lot on individual song entries. I think the article is in good shape and ready for GAN. What do you think, Moisejp, I.M.S., anyone else? (I realise there is a lot of detail on The Band's versions of the songs, but I don't feel strongly. The material Moisejp has addded is certainly encyclopedic in its thoroughness.) Mick gold (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've been especially busy the last several days and haven't had time to follow all of the changes made or sit down and look at the article thoroughly. Hopefully in the next few days or so I can do that. One thing I do really really want to resolve before we bring this to GAN is the issue I mentioned above about presenting neutrally both claims (Robertson's and Heylin&Co.'s) about when the eight Band songs were recorded, particularly the "1975 three": "Bessie Smith," "Don't Ya Tell Henry" and "Ain't No More Cain." Here we have a case where Robertson reportedly remembers (or says he remembers) the three being recorded in 1967–68 and we have the relatively recent 2005 liner notes of A Musical History, the most official recent documentation on the songs (whether or not it is accurate), saying the same thing [19]. On the other hand we have Dylan researchers like Heylin and Griffin asserting that the songs were recorded in 1975, which I think most people generally take for granted these days. But we can't just ignore Robertson's and A Musical History's claim. We need to present both sides to be encyclopedic and neutral. I think if we present both sides without bias readers will be able to make their own decision about what they believe, but if they see that respected Dylan biographers assert strongly that the songs were recorded in 1975, or take for granted that they were, readers will naturally at the very least question Robertson's claims, which is all we can fairly attempt to persuade without being biased in the face of conflicting information. By the way, Mick gold, in any of your Heylin books, does he explain how he came about deciding that the recordings were made in 1975 (I don't think he does in The Recording Sessions)? That could be useful information as well. I believe Griffin interviewed one of the 1975 engineers, who corroborated some of this, too.

The "1975 three" are the biggest issue, but for thoroughness I'd like for us to go through each of the eight and see if we have any conflicting information for any of them as well—as I mentioned above, there seem to be different views about when and where "Katie's Been Gone" was recorded. I really think this could be an interesting aspect of the article: showing that there is dispute about not only the ethics of including the eight songs (as we already show) but also more specifically when and where the songs may have been recorded. For thoroughness, I hope we can also look at other sources about what overdubbing may have occurred in 1975. I don't think anyone, including Robertson, has denied that overdubbing took place. But as it is now I think we kind of treat Griffin's book as the undisputed bible of recording information. I think he's the only one who has attempted a song-by-song guess of who played what instruments, so I have no problem only quoting him on that. But in the case of overdubbing, I think we can quite likely find other sources of people who have made guesses at what specific songs have been overdubbed with what instruments.

I don't think this should be too hard to make these changes. Let's review our sources (I'll review mine too), see what different people may have said about the issues above, and then we just have to change our stance throughout the article from "this recording information is fact" to "so-and-so thinks this, but this other person thinks this." If we can do that, I believe it will be a very big, vital improvement to the article. Any thoughts about all of this? Moisejp (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope there isn’t a danger of getting bogged down in the minutiae of these questions. Surely we can state succinctly that Heylin and Griffin argue one version, and that Bowman and Robertson argue a different version. Griffin’s account is mainly based on his detailed interview with Rob Fraboni, engineer of TBT. He also talked to John Simon and Robbie Robertson. Heylin’s song-by-song analysis of Dylan’s work, Revolution In The Air, accepts Griffin’s views as authoritative in this area. Hoskyns, in his big book on The Band, does not even discuss this question. I don’t believe that Greil Marcus discusses these songs. Apart from Griffin, I am simply not aware of “other sources of people who have made guesses at what specific songs have been overdubbed with what instruments”.

I think TBT is an important album because Dylan recorded it after a traumatic crash. It represented a radically new direction for Dylan, a new direction for rock music, and it has left a sizeable legacy. I think the article states clearly there is controversy over the inclusion of The Band’s material, and also over the origins of that material. We can record there is disagreement over the origin of a few songs, but surely it can be done concisely. Mick gold (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I may simply be reiterating what you two have said, but I think we should represent both sides of the argument neutrally and concisely. A short paragraph should suffice, I hope; the article is already swelling in size (80,000 bytes!) and I believe most of what needs to be written is present in it now. Polishing what we have is, obviously, the next step. If we ever take this to FA and it passes, TBT will probably become the largest album FA article (I'll have to check on this, but DSO The Moon, which I believe is the longest, is only 84,000 bytes). It will be quite an achievement. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, succinct sounds good to me. About the overdubbing, if there are no other sources, then just citing Griffin is fine. I kind of thought I'd seen another mention of some of the specific overdubs somewhere, but I could be wrong about that. Regarding Heylin, he may treat Griffin as authoritative in Revolution in the Air, but Heylin was already saying in The Recording Sessions in 1995 (12 years before Griffin's book came out) that some Band tracks were recorded in 1975. If Griffin's account is based on interviewing Fraboni, I was just wondering what Heylin's source of info was in 1995. But it's not a big deal, if this information is not available, no worries.

I.M.S., I'm concerned in your edit where you moved Criticism of the 1975 Album up into the album section, it kind of suggests the "Negative Reaction" was shortly after the release but a lot of it has been in the last 15 years. Maybe we should move it back to its own section outside of the context of the release itself, and possibly just call it "Criticism"? What do people think? Moisejp (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think that as it is about criticism of the 1975 release, it should be under that heading. If you and Mick gold disagree, I have no problem with moving it back. I've changed it to "criticism of song selection" for now. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moisejp. When the criticism came before the creation of the cover art, it felt like criticism that coincided with the release of the album, so I agree that it is more appropriate after cover art. Also I don't think it's just about 'song selection', it's about something wider. Heylin & Hopkins are alleging that there is something fundamentally dishonest about the way that Robertson structured the 1975 release, in his effort to make The Band material seem equal to Dylan's compositions. There were critics who noted the non-appearance of important songs, such as "I Shall Be Released", but Heylin & Hopkins go further and think Robertson is falsifying the record. So I think 'Criticism of 1975 Album' is accurate description of what their charges focused on.

As for Heylin's take on The Band's recordings in his 1995 book, I'm not in a position to comment. Recording Sessions is one Heylin book which I've never looked at. It's quite hard to find now. I just don't know how Heylin phrases his misgivings about the material on the 1975 album. Mick gold (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about Heylin's source for the Band track info in Recording Sessions, but I thought he might have mentioned something in one of his other books. But if he hasn't, oh well. BTW, someone has put his discussion of the Band tracks from Recording Sessions onto the Band website: [20]. At least a couple of Heylin's facts here appears to be mistaken—he says that Manuel wrote "You Say You Love Me" and "Ferdinand the Imposter" but Robertson is given writing credit for these on A Musical History. Moisejp (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Even If it's a Pig," what Marcus says about "Part 1" is that "muddy fragments" have been bootlegged. I don't know how much of it remains unheard and out of collectors' hands, but at least some of it is in circulation: Reel 10 tracks 18 to 20 of the bootleg From the Reels (which I have a copy of) [21] are discussed by Marcus on pages 75–77, including Hudson's poetry, which as I recall is included at the end of track 20, though not listed separately. I don't remember if Track 2 is a separate take of Gloria/Banana Boat Song or not—it may or may not be part of "Even If it's a Pig." But in any case, my point is that we know that at least some of "Part 1" is in circulation, we don't know how much may or may not be left unheard, so I think it is safer to not list it in the part about uncirculating songs. Anyway, that list only claims to be a few examples, so we don't have to worry about trying to be "complete." I am tentatively going to remove "Part 1" from the list. If someone feels strongly that it should be reinstated, maybe we should add "parts of" to it. Moisejp (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mick gold, I know you've said you like the paragraph at the end of "Early recordings" that begins with "A theme of ..." which at one point I tried to delete but which you reinstated. I just do not see what the relevance of the paragraph is, but please explain so that I can better understand. Hoskyns says the Band influenced Dylan with their musical discipline and sense of tradition—I don't know if that's true or not, maybe Dylan would have gone in that direction anyway, but fair enough, that's just Hoskyns's opinion, which is valid. But then I cannot get the real relevance of the Robertson quote. Robertson didn't like Blonde on Blonde's verbal complexity—OK ... Robertson came on the rock'n'roll/blues/country train—good for you, Robbie ... special music is "magical"—yeah, lots of people would agree with that ... and he wasn't getting this from Dylan's mid-60s music. Finally "The way in which the traditional songs gave birth to a new style of Dylan composition would be central to the basement recordings." So what is this all saying? That Robbie is taking credit for showing Dylan how to create "magical music"? If so, should we just say directly, "Hoskyns credits Robertson and The Band with helping Dylan to begin playing a purer (?) kind of music"? If we do that, maybe we should counterbalance it with this Heylin quote from The Recording Sessions (p. 58): "Robertson has talked a lot of stuff and nonsense about his tutoring of Dylan (cough). According to Mr. Robertson, 'We would talk about early rockabilly records and stuff like that and I [would try] to get him to see that there was a vibe, a sound quality, to certain records, whether it was a Motown thing or a Sun Records thing or a Phil Spector thing.' The idea that Dylan would need to be tutored on the Sun sound is truly laughable ... On early basement sessions Dylan is largely content to run through old folk, country, and blues standards, clearly suggesting that it was he who was doing the tutoring and that it was Robertson—as the figure in the Band least steeped in rural American music—who was being shown 'a vibe, a sound quality.'" So again, I'm not sure if that is the point of the Hoskyns/Robertson citation, but either way I think we should make it clearer what it is trying to say. And if it is trying to say that Robertson deserves a lot of credit, Heylin's quote shows that this is not an unanimous opinion. I still think it'd be an idea to delete the paragraph, but if you are partial to it, that's OK, let's find a way to make it work. Moisejp (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Moisejp, thanks for your thoughtful comments. You make your point well. As I said, I've never looked at Heylin's Recording Sessions, but your quote is hilarious. Heylin is nothing if not polemical. I think you're suggesting that article gives Robertson too much credit for transformational nature of TBT. Heylin quote is certainly a hilarious shooting down of Roberston's pretensions. So I've cut the Robertson quote, and used the Hoskyns point at the end of the list of trad/contemporary material Dylan & The Band covered. I think Hoskyns's idea that Dylan needed seclusion of Woodstock after "psychosis" of world tour has been made by other writers (Sounes writes about this), and I think Hoskyns point about the discipline & musicianship of The Band is OK without needing Heylin to balance it. What seems to rile Heylin is Robertson's habit of claiming credit for educating Dylan, but he would acknowledge they did contribute fine musicianship. So is this new version OK for you? Best, Mick gold (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I like your edits, Mick gold. BTW, I also wanted to mention I liked your handling of the disputed recording dates in "ANMC," "Bessie Smith" and "DYTH." I've tried to do the same for "KBG." About your "Songs and Themes" introduction edits, overall I really like them, but I'm just worried someone is going to complain that there are too many very short paragraphs. I'm trying to think of a way to fix that. No ideas so far, but I'm going to keep thinking. A couple little things about the song descriptions in "Songs and Themes": (1) I'm not sure if you were planning to come back to them, but "Yazoo," "Remus" and "Acapulco" seem especially short and maybe could use another sentence or two. I'll try to think of something too, but haven't had a chance yet; (2) "Bessie Smith" seems pretty negative—lots of bad stuff is said about it and the only good thing mentioned is Hudson's organ playing. I'll try to find some positive stuff said about it. I feel we're getting a lot closer to being ready for GAN—almost there. Moisejp (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I've added more to "Acapulco". "Yazoo" and "Remus" are, I think, minor songs and we need not worry about saying more about them. I think we're ready for GAN. As I.M.S. says we are nearly the same length as DSO the Moon, perhaps the longest FA on an album. Extraordinary. Mick gold (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we go to GAN I would like to tweak the intro to Songs and Themes a little more, have a final check for consistency issues, and a final check for any other little issues we may have missed. I'll try to look into these things in the next several days. How about you, I.M.S., are there some issues you think need addressing before we go to GAN? Moisejp (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Helm's late arrival to Woodstock is mentioned in a footnote, but should we mention that somewhere in the main text? In a way it kind of a big event in the chronology of things. Maybe that footnote could be worked into the main text somehow, if anyone has ideas. Moisejp (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference for this: "These credits do not acknowledge that Dylan does not appear on The Band's tracks." If we could find someone who explicitly says that he didn't it'd be nice. Moisejp (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure we need a reference for this? 16 tracks are by Dylan, 8 tracks are by The Band. The tracks by The Band are by The Band because The Band sing them and Bob Dylan does not sing them. Wouldn't it be somewhat tautologous for a critic to write "Bob Dylan does not sing the tracks by The Band". If we are searching for a critic who explicitly states that Dylan does not play rhythm guitar or piano on tracks by The Band, we may be disappointed. Mick gold (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but one idea would be to cut the sentence about Dylan and Helm, for several reasons: (1) lots of albums in existence have personnel credits that just list "the following musicians played on this record" without indicating who played on what; (2) when I first wrote the Helm part I was thinking he didn't play on any of the Dylan tracks, but then I realized he is overdubbed on "Too Much of Nothing," so there seems less point in mentioning that he "he didn't play on any except one"; (3) as I mentioned above, it might be an idea to try to mention Helm's arrival in the main text if we can find a place to fit in (I have one idea for that—see below); (4) as you say, Mick gold, we don't need to mention that Dylan didn't sing on the non-Dylan songs, and if we can't find a ref that explicitly says he definitely didn't play on any of them, which as you say may be difficult, maybe we shouldn't mention it at all; (5) it's better than before, but the intro to "Songs and Themes" is still a little bit choppy with its one-sentence paragraphs, and removing this sentence might help. Moisejp (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if you cut sentence about Dylan and Helm. Mick gold (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thought about the intro to "Songs and themes": we list the song personnel credits as shown on TBT liner notes, making the point that they aren't very specific, and I was wondering if this would be a good opportunity to also mention there that the TBT liner notes simply say about the recording location "Recorded in the basement of Big Pink, West Saugerties, NY., 1967." Of course, throughout the article we already make the point that this is inaccurate, but if we mentioned the "Big Pink, West Saugerties, NY., 1967" claim here we could concisely tie it in with our "All tracks by Bob Dylan and The Band recorded in Woodstock, June to October 1967. Tracks by The Band as indicated" and "based on ... his interviews with Robbie Robertson and engineer Rob Fraboni, who prepared The Basement Tapes for their 1975 official release" sentences. Moisejp (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you need to mention the "Big Pink, West Saugerties, NY., 1967" claim here. There's a lot of info in the article about where & when it was recorded. Do we need more? Mick gold (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's forget that idea. Moisejp (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a quote by Helm that might be good in the main text and that we could use to talk about his late arrival. He says (in his autobiography This Wheel's on Fire, page 156) when he arrived in Woodstock and heard the songs they'd recorded: "I could tell that hanging out with the boys had helped Bob to find a connection with things we were interested in: blues, rockabilly, R&B. They had rubbed on him a little." That could fit in nicely at the end of "Early recordings" right after the Hoskyns quote. We could say something like "Levon Helm, who did not arrive in Woodstock to join his bandmates until October 1967, would later say 'I could tell ...' " (We could also put a footnote there about him not playing on any of the Dylan recordings except on the "TMON" overdub.) One concern I have about this, though, is that he makes this comment in reference to the Bob Dylan originals, not the traditional covers. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good Helm quote, after Hoskyns as you suggest.Mick gold (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'll try to get to that in the next few days. Moisejp (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For my edit at 14:42, 15 June 2010, I cut the link to Bowman's online notes, saying it may be a copyright violation. Afterwards I wondered if just listing song credit information is really a violation (and whether it is any different from what we do in the article when we list personnel credit info from Griffin and TBT liner notes). But anyway, I don't think it hurts to cut it, for possible safety, and also for consistency, because for the other liner notes references we directly cite the album notes, not the online version listed on the Band website. (In the case of Barney Hoskyns unused liner notes for the 2000 remasters, the Band website specifically says they did have permission to reprint them, so I think it's fine to link to them.) Moisejp (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally found the Bowman notes (as linked on The Band website) v useful for reference. I think The Band website is careful about copyright, they posted a couple of articles I wrote, and they cleared the copyright. I think it's OK to link the Bowman notes. Mick gold (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just read your 1975 TBT review from Let It Rock on the Band website—interesting! You were talking a while back about quoting from this. It looks like you are allowed to cite yourself so go nuts!

Thanks! If I had a good idea for using my material, I'd do so... but my sense is we have more than enough critical commentary for now. Maybe one day. Mick gold (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

About whether or not the Band site gets permission for the stuff they reproduce, I could be wrong but my impression has been that they do sometimes but don't always. Your review clearly is, and the Barney Hoskyns 2000 liner notes clearly are. But for example, on the page that has the Ruth Spencer interview with R. Manuel [22], note it says "Copyright © Ruth Albert Spencer" but it doesn't say anything about "used with permission" like it does for your review. Similarly, for the Heylin quote from Recording Sessions, [23] it says "The text is copyrighted, please do not copy or redistribute" but nothing about "used with permission." Am I totally off about whether or not the presence or absence of "used with permission" makes a difference? I mean, if I had a website, I could reproduce tons of copyrighted material, write "This is copyrighted, please don't reproduce or redistribute" but that wouldn't mean I had permission to put it up in the first place. I get the sense the Band website maybe asked for permission where they thought they were likely to get it, and where they thought they'd be likely to be refused, they put up a "this is copyrighted by someone somewhere" kind of message to suggest to people who didn't dig too deep that the Band site maybe had permission to use it. But again, I could be wrong. I'm also curious to hear I.M.S.'s opinion about this. Moisejp (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't feel strongly about this. I'm v happy to forget the link. Mick gold (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Best to play it safe. I wouldn't link to a site that reproduces large portions of text without explicitly stating that they have acquired the author's permission. We can always just cite the original articles themselves, without linking to an online source. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting closer and closer

In "After the crash" the first part of Heylin's quote about it being a pivot of his career sounds OK to me, but I wonder if the part about the great irony being that it was Dylan's most prolific year as a songwriter should be moved to another part of the article—it feels a bit out of place to me. But I don't have a strong opinion about this. Moisejp (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is "After the crash" encyclopedic enough as a heading? Seems like a leftover from when the article had headings like "Killing time with The Hawks." (It's also a bootleg title, isn't it?) But I don't have any better ideas. If everyone else thinks it's fine, we can keep it as is. Moisejp (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We could use something like "Motorcycle crash and aftermath," as the section does deal with the crash itself and not just the aftermath. Perhaps we should relocate the actual crash to "background". I'm really not sure. I suppose "after the crash" is alright for now; I can't think of anything much better at the moment. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"After the crash" seems fine to me. I think the mention that 1967 was Dylan's most prolific year as a songwriter is good here, it helps to set up the basement recordings. Mick gold (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"The double album comprised seven songs from The Basement Tapes sessions, plus some early recordings Dylan had made in Minneapolis in December 1961, and a couple of tracks recorded from the Johnny Cash TV show." What's the name of the Johnny Cash TV show? We should either name it or describe it better. Moisejp (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Mick gold, did you end up checking our Shelton citations to make sure they match your copy of the book? As we are presumably getting quite close to submitting this to GAN, anytime would be good, if you haven't already. Moisejp (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Johnny Cash Show. Sadly, I have the 1986 paperback edition, so I am unable to check against the 1986 hardback, which I take it is the one we are citing. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I.M.S.! Moisejp (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

All the Shelton page numbers match my 1986 hardback copy of the book. I inserted most of the Shelton quotes into the individual entries on songs. Mick gold (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! For clarification, would be it be a good idea to add the "edition" parameter to Shelton's ref, so others know which printing we're using? Something like this:

Shelton, Robert (1986), No Direction Home: The Life and Music of Bob Dylan (1st [Hardback] ed.), New English Library, ISBN 0-4500-4843-8

Or this:

Shelton, Robert (1986), No Direction Home: The Life and Music of Bob Dylan (Hardback ed.), New English Library, ISBN 0-4500-4843-8

- I.M.S. (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? I prefer your second suggestion. Mick gold (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and made various little punctuation, etc. edits. I'm satisfied with where it's at and would be willing to put it up for GAN whenever if both of you feel it is ready. Moisejp (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ready to go for GAN, it's been closely edited by the 3 of us. FWIW, it looks like FA to me; it can't be far removed at any rate. Please mention I.M.S. and myself as co-nominators. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I will—sorry I neglected to do that last time, it was a simple oversight of how these things work. I'll just wait for I.M.S.'s approval before proceeding. Moisejp (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Let's do it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Here we go! Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Apparently there's quite a backlog of nominations, so it may take some time for someone to get to ours. Moisejp (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Basement Tapes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: 10 found and fixed.[24]

Linkrot: no dead links found

Checking against GA criteria

General comments, first:

• The sound of Dylan backed by a rock band generated much audience hostility Does the citation say much or is it just some hostility?Y

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, sufficiently follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References good, assume good faith for print sources.

1. One slight query above.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Well balanced, avoiding too much intricate detail.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image used with suitable rationale.

6. Overall:

1. Pass/Fail:

1. On hold for seven days for above query to be addressed, otherwise very good. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to the book used as a source, so I've added a second one that supports the claim. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with I.M.S. substitution of 2nd Heylin source, so I've deleted the first ref. New ref says: "Glasgow in keeping with most of the northern shows had fans shouting 'Rubbish!' and 'Shut up!'" There is an anecdote about one 'fan' pulling a knife and threatening Dylan as a "traitor to folk music" (an incident that was dramatised in the film I'm Not There). Mick gold (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my problem is with the use of the word much. The quote above about Glasgow says fans were shouting 'Rubbish' and 'Shut up'. At the Colston Hall on 10 May, some folkies shouted out 'Disgraceful', but many others in the audience shouted at them, asking them to shut up. I remember, I was there! )Yes, I know, OR!). The Times review of one of the Albert Hall concerts (27 May 166, page 7) has: "After the interval, however, judgement became difficult as Mr. Dylan's voice to the evident dissatisfaction of a section of the audience, was all but drowned by his accompanists." Andy Kershaw reports John Coldwell (who shouted Judas at Manchester) saying 'So, why - as a young Manchester law-student in 1966 - had he done it? "I think most of all I was angry that Dylan... not that he'd played electric, but that he'd played electric with a really poor sound system. It was not like it is on the record [the official album]. It was a wall of mush. That, and it seemed like a cavalier performance, a throwaway performance compared with the intensity of the acoustic set earlier on. There were rumblings all around me and the people I was with were making noises and looking at each other. It was a build-up."'[25]. Bruce Jackson (Newport Folk Festival director says of that first electric performance, "It wasn't Dylan the audience was booing." and goes on to say that the audience was booing Peter Yarrow, who they felt had cut Dylan's performance short.[26].

So, I think it is fair to say "...was greeted with [some] audience hostility.", but not "much hostility. I believe that the word much gives too much weight to the matter. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is a mistake to get too hung up on the word 'much'. However, every review of the Live 1966 album focused on the barrage of jeering, booing and slow handclapping that accompanied Dylan's electric set. Reviewing this record in Rolling Stone (RS, Oct 29, 1998) David Fricke wrote: "The rage and disdain in Bob Dylan's voice are unmistakable, even against the poisonous buzz and boos of the crowd... This isn't rock & roll; it's war." That sounds like more than just 'some' hostility to me.

You quote John Cordwell's account of the concert. Heylin quotes the words Keith Butler spoke outside the 1966 Manchester concert in the movie Eat The Document: "It was a bloody disgrace it was. He wants shooting. He's a traitor."

As for Newport 1965, not everyone agrees with Bruce Jackson. Murray Lerner who filmed the performance says: "I absolutely think that they were booing Dylan going electric." [27]

Fascinating stuff but I've removed the word 'much'. Mick gold (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I really believe that that is best, in the interests of good encyclopaedic practice. I am happy to pass this as GA status. In passing I should meantion that the Manchester concert (17 May) was not the last of that tour. The Albert Hall was (26-27 May) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jezzhotwells, for your review. Shall we proceed to WP:FAC? Mick gold (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth a go, but you may need to cite the personnel on each track and might run into difficulties with Sid Griffin's speculations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Jezzhotwells, and thanks Mick gold and I.M.S. for all your hard work! I say we do proceed to FA. As Jezzhotwells says, we may run into obstacles, but that's part of the fun of being a Wikipedia editor, dealing with such obstacles. I have confidence we can handle the challenges. One point: I will have very limited access to the Internet from July 23 to a couple weeks after that. I may be able to make it online a tiny bit in there but cannot count on too much. I think we should either jump in immediately and hopefully the FAR process will be well under way by then (but it's quite possible we may still be dealing with some thorny issues by then) or else we'll need to wait five or six weeks from now. I say let's dive in immediately, and I'm sure even if I'm not there much at the end you two can deal with things. But if you two don't feel comfortable with that, then it's better that we wait. Moisejp (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to go for it now. Mick gold (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Who should file it? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it right now. Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Early months

"Apparently, much of the early months was spent on covers." There are two reasons I'm not crazy about this sentence. One is that "apparently" doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and it's not clear who it is apparent to. The other thing is that the sentence before ("For the first couple of months, they were just "killing time," according to Robertson.) also talks about the first months, but it's not clear if the time period is the same or to what degree there is overlap—for me "early months" sounds like a few months as opposed to a couple. Does this sentence bother anyone else, and if so any ideas for what to do with it? Moisejp (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. Moisejp (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sound samples

FAC reviewer DCGeist has suggested we add sound samples, which we discussed May 26–27 without resolving anything. Songs you two proposed at that time were "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere," "Apple Suckling Tree," "Open the Door, Homer," "Bessie Smith" and "Don't Ya Tell Henry." You both seemed to vote for "Don't Ya Tell Henry" as a representative of the 1975 Band recordings so I will go ahead and add a sound sample for that to begin. Mick gold's point that "Apple Suckling Tree" and "Open the Door, Homer" were not overdubbed could be a good reason to choose them as representative Dylan tracks. Should I go ahead and add these two, as well? Moisejp (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moisejp, I was about to write you a note but you got there first! I think "Apple Suckling Tree" and "Open the Door, Homer" would be excellent as examples of Dylan & The Band in 1967; and "Don't Ya Tell Henry" is good example of Band's 1975 recording. Mick gold (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made sound samples for the three songs and now just have to upload them and do the rationales. Mick gold, if you wanted to write the captions for the songs, you could, as I find you are good at that. BTW, I decided that since I.M.S. didn't object to your song suggestions in May, these three are probably fine. I hope that is OK, I.M.S.! Moisejp (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. We've been talking just now about "DYTH" as a good example of the Band's 1975 recordings, but in the song caption as well, I think we need to stick to the article neutral stance that they may have been, or at least that certain biographers argue they were, recorded then. If you end up writing the caption, I think it'd be a good idea to keep it neutral like that. Thanks! (But if you don't get around to adding the caption I can have a go at it, too.) Moisejp (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Moisejp. I've written 2 of the 3 captions. There's something funny about the file name on "Open the Door, Homer", but I was unable to fix it. I couldn't get rid of the odd term "noicon". Mick gold (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that - it was a capitalisation issue. The file is File:Open The Door, Homer.ogg, not File:Open the Door, Homer.ogg! :-) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

An editor has added "Sign on the Cross" to the list of songs in the second paragraph of "New Compositions" attributed to Heylin in Bob Dylan: A Life In Stolen Moments: Day by Day 1941–1995 pp. 107–108 as being among the most celebrated of Dylan's career. Could someone who has that book confirm that Heylin included the song in this list? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's there, but those two pages of Heylin contain a very long list of songs, including such obscurities as "Wild Wolf" and "Bourbon Street" - so I've trimmed the list. Later, Heylin is quoted as complaining about the absence of "Sign On the Cross" and "I'm Not There" from the 1975 album but they don't need to be mentioned twice imho. Mick gold (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That was my feeling, too, that the list was too long. I like your edit. Moisejp (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:Indopug

I reverted four edits by the above editor as I feel that they need some sort of consensus, especially from the FAC nominators. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I support restoring all of these edits by Indopug.—DCGeist (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

McGuinness Flint

I'm thinking we should try to incorporate this bit of information (from the "Lo and Behold" subsection) - ""Lo and Behold" became the title track of an album of unreleased Dylan songs recorded by the British group Coulson, Dean, McGuinness, Flint in 1972." into another part of the article. Judging from its Allmusic listing, it is a tribute to Dylan's unreleased material. If we placed it right, this sentence could help illustrate other bands' interest in the Basement Tapes catalog prior to the 1975 album, and might fit it well with the "early covers" paragraph under Dwarf Music demos and Great White Wonder. Where would this belong? Any ideas? - I.M.S. (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dwarf Music demos and Great White Wonder strikes me as the right spot for it. On second thought, that section covers late 1967 through 1969. Adding this album there would be too great a chronological and conceptual jump. That leaves two possible locations for a fuller description: (1) the present "Lo and Behold" subsection or (2) the Legacy section.

The original album appears to include covers of six basement songs: "Lo and Behold", "Open the Door, Homer", "Don't You Tell Henry", "Get Your Rocks Off" (not on the '75 BT), "Odds and Ends", and "Sign on the Cross" (not on the '75 BT). The Allmusic description indicates that "Tiny Montgomery", now a bonus track, was originally a single B-side.—DCGeist (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is fair comment. Don't forget the Julie Driscoll & Brian Auger version of Wheel's on Fire, Jonathan King had a single release of Million $ Bash in 67/68. Both UK artists and probably many more, it's was all down to the UK publishers of Dylan's material at the time, B Feldman & Sons Ltd, who were pitching the songs to artists in the UK. Me being me, I know about it, but can't source it! --Richhoncho (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations ...

... on getting this to featured article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done and kudos...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Well done again. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we being congratulated? It looks like this article was not promoted [28] Mick gold (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - I assumed you passed because you got 3 supports and 0 opposes, you did a great job though...Modernist (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And I assumed everybody else knew what they were talking about. Oh well, soon... --Richhoncho (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We had an oppose from WesleyDodds. Is that the reason? WD disliked the song-by-song analysis. What can we do? I don't think we can ditch the song-by-song analysis. Anyway, it's inconsistent because Freewheelin' was promoted to FA with that structure. Mick gold (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See the FAC page—it was archived before DCGeist's support came in. From the sidelines, I could see there was great work achieved during the candidacy, and I hope all concerned are not too downhearted that you ran out of time; not altogether surprising, with that amount of change during a FAC. Just carry on, business as usual: finish any further polishing, and get it back up to FAC just as soon as the prescribed two weeks has elapsed. PL290 (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect — SandyGeorgia's notice of closure is timestamped 4 minutes after DCGeist's support (see my post below). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought WD's oppose was concerning whether or not to keep the song analysis; not related to an oppose to the article's promotion; another misread on my part...Modernist (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PL290, ran out of time? Please enlighten me. Basement Tapes was nom on 4 July, enormous amount of work by Modernist, DCGeist & me going on at moment when it was archived. Looking at FAC page, Siege of Godesborg was nom on 26 June, Kent, Ohio was nom on 14 June. Much editorial work still going on yet they have not been terminated or archived. Why? Mick gold (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask Sandy to reopen it...Modernist (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mick, one obvious answer is, "Perhaps they should be!" Holding up a comparison doesn't always prove one is right, or produce the result one might hope for. The FAC delegates have their reasons for their actions, and we all know it's the case that —despite the great work sometimes achieved that way (which I in no way disparage)—ultimately, FAC is not meant to be an article improvement workshop. Once again, commiserations—particularly to those who initially thought the article had been promoted, to whom the disappointment must be tinged with shock and disbelief. It's frustrating that you now have to wait two weeks, but believe me, that's really not very long (been there, done that). :) PL290 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that the process is flawed and arbitrary as Mick gold points out. I think you should ask for the nomination to be re-opened. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:DCGeist's support is datestamped 21:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[29], User:SandyGeorgia's close is at 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[30]. User:SandyGeorgia then added "Declaration entered after FAC was archived" at 21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[31] so it looks all wrong to me. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

sigh ... no, that was the closing note - here's when the nom was archived, which occurred earlier. PL290 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That's right. Sandy archives en masse first, which she did at 21:40. My declaration of support posted three minutes later. She definitely did not and could not have seen it when she archived. Likewise, as I was writing the declaration, I didn't see that she had archived until after I posted.—DCGeist (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So it is a flawed process, the closure note should happen first as editors can't be expected to be mind readers. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How depressing. We all knew that DCGeist was on the verge of supporting but was just trying to help make it as pefect as can be, but Sandy Georgia must have interpreted his ongoing supportive criticism and comments as an indication that we were still far from achieving a stable article with consensus of support. Such bad timing that DCGeist and Sandy crossed wires by three minutes. Does anyone want to explain the situation to her and ask her to reopen it? I'm too depressed right now to do so. Or we could renominate it in two weeks, which is I guess what we'll have to do otherwise, but I would just be so discouraged having to go through the whole process again, and possibly face other editors who throw new curveballs at us. (But, again, if we have to do that, so be it. This is an FA-quality article, and it'd be stupid to give up without getting the certification.)Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please, please don't consider giving up. I meant every word I said in that declaration of support. The story of The Basement Tapes may be more convoluted than the story of any other pop music album ever, and you did a great job making the story both comprehensible and involving. I'm as confident as my position-less position allows me to be that you'll have the FA status you deserve at the end of the next nomination.—DCGeist (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nil desperandum, DCGeist & PL290 are right, we have to go on. We have to wait 2 weeks. That’s the middle of August. I’m away without much access to internet from 20 Aug to 7 Sep. Shall we try again on 8 Sep? I agree with Jezhotwells, the process was flawed and arbitrary this time around. One thing I'm not sure about: Do we need to make changes before next nomination? Interventions by Modernist, DCGeist, Ceoil improved it enormously. I’m not sure where we can go? Can we re-submit this version? Mick gold (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What you have now has my full support. I certainly see no reason why it can't be resubmitted. I don't think Sandy archived because of any particular long-standing problems that had been left unresolved, but because she saw (a) ongoing debate and (b) insufficient declarations of support—what she couldn't see was (a) that the last, involved debate had actually just been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and (b) my declaration of support, which came those tragic 180 seconds too late. When I look at the article, I see a terrific article that should be an FA. That's my view.—DCGeist (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By way of encouragement, I can tell you that I still have a scrap of paper on my desk where I jotted the date of my first-pass review of the article, 17 July. At that point, I knew that several issues were under discussion with reviewers, but overall, my impression was of a strong article that I would be likely to end up supporting once certain things were sorted out. 24 hours later, the accelerating rate of change led me to put my review on hold until such time as the article became more stable. (I'm sure you can appreciate why I had to do that; a FAC review is a significant investment of time, and its value—and that of specific comments noted—can quickly diminish if the article undergoes a high level of change during the candidacy.) The point in time I was waiting for, when things became more stable (need I say it again) never came. The changes continued right up till the moment the nom was archived. As a result, I have not yet devoted the time to re-reading the article in detail since I did so on 17 July. That said, I kept a gentle eye on things, and my impression was, as I said earlier, of great work being done. On the basis of all that—assuming those who retained close involvement are satisfied with the work done—in my opinion you should not hesitate to re-nominate it in its present form for the new FAC. PL290 (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Mick gold, Sept. 8 sounds fine to me. I'm feeling more encouraged now than I was last night. It sounds like we have some good support from lots of people, so hopefully all will go smoothly next time around. I probably won't be able to be online again for several days after I write this, but you have my support for whatever you decide to do. Talk again soon. Moisejp (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DCGeist & PL290. Now we are on verge of re-submitting TBT as FAC, do we need clever wording to acknowledge the fact that article has not changed substantively since it's last (failed) FAC? Mick gold (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you need to address that at all directly. You could simply say something like the previous FAC was extensive; that virtually all issues raised were addressed during its course; and the couple of lingering issues that had been being discussed when the nomination was closed were resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved.—DCGeist (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Orange Juice Blues (Blues For Breakfast)

About the recording info for "Orange Juice Blues," so far we have Griffin saying it was recorded at Woodstock and Hopkins saying the 2000 MFBP remaster bonus track demo version is the same performance but without the overdubs. OK, so far so good. But if we dig a bit deeper, it gets more complicated. We have Hopkins saying the 2000 MFBP bonus track demo version is the same track, but Hoskyns [[32]] in his 2000 MFBP liner notes says it is not the same version as TBT—it's the "faster and punchier version" that appears on Across the Great Divide, which was also later released on A Musical History. Personally, I think Hopkins is clearly right and Hoskyns wrong on this one—if you listen to the 2000 MFBP demo bonus track [[33]], the vocal sounds a lot more like TBT version [[34]] than the A Musical History one [[35]]. However, that would be original research, and we can't let OR sway what we write. Hoskyns dates the MFBP bonus track as from The Band's September 1967 New York studio session, which is when Across the Great Divide's liner notes date the ATGD version as being from. Rob Bowman's 2005 A Musical History notes say that the AMH version is the same as the ATGD one, except Bowman dates the recording as "2/20/68 Gold Star Studio - Los Angeles, CA". Bowman's 2000 liner notes for MFBP don't give specific recording info, but says, "OJB is also included on this reissue as a bonus cut in a demo version featuring its author Richard Manuel accompanying himself with some rollicking barrelhouse piano. A group version of the song previously appeared on the now deleted Across the Great Divide box set." It's not clear, but this may suggest Bowman did not consider the MFBP version to be the same as the ATGD one (with or without overdubs). Griffin on page 245 clearly says that the ATGD/AMH is not same version as TBT one. I guess this is a little far-fetched, but with so much conflicting info, if we assume it is possible Hopkins is right that the MFBP and TBT were the same performance, and that Hoskyns is right that the MFBP and ATGD performances are the same (but I'd guess that'd mean there's have to be completely different overdubs from the same demo, resulting in the two different "band" versions: TBT and ATGD—which seems implausible), and he's wrong that the MFBP and TBT versions aren't the same, then we have a disputed recording info for TBT version. Again, that all sounds like a bit of a stretch, but where do we cut off the story? One idea would be simply to cut our mention of Hopkins's belief TBT and MFBP versions are the same. Or a second idea would be to keep Hopkins, and then say that Hoskyns disagrees; he connects the MFBP to a recording that the ATGD and AMH liner notes date as 9/67 and 2/68 respectively. We wouldn't have to deviate from our statement that TBT version was recorded in Woodstock, because no one has actually said otherwise, and we wouldn't have to mention Bowman's 2000 MFBP liner notes, which are unclear. It's a bit complicated, but I think this second idea would be interesting for the article. Any other opinions about this? Moisejp (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe none of this is very relevant to TBT version of "Orange Juice Blues". It's relevant to the MFBP bonus track and whether or not it is the same performance as TBT one, but since it's not on TBT itself, we don't have to discuss it. One idea, as mentioned above, would be to simply cut the sentence about Hopkins. Or another would be to change "Hopkins notes" to "Hopkins believes". Saying he believes doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that other people have other opinions. But, yeah, maybe just cutting the sentence would be the most objective thing to do. I'm going to mull this for a couple of days, and if I don't hear any objections, I may go ahead and cut it. Moisejp (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking good

Article looks in great shape for current FAC. I'm going to try and swing by the library this weekend to score a quote from Robert Hilburn's 1975 Los Angeles Times review for the Reception and sales section.—DCGeist (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Robertson and royalties

This re-visits earlier discussions on track selection and the inclusion of non-basement songs, so if I'm re-opening a can of worms that's been sufficiently closed, I apologize. One thing that strikes me about the issue is that if Robbie Robertson learned nothing else from his association with Dylan, it was that the road to riches in the music business is paved with royalties. The later controversy over authorship of the Band's songs confirms this, though its connection with TBT is tenuous. Anyway, as "archivist" for TBT, Robertson included four songs to which he held either joint or sole ownership and with that, he secured part of the album's royalties pie. I don't know if there's any source that raises this possibility, but it strikes me as the only explanation for using material that had nothing whatsoever to do with what occurred at Big Pink, despite Robertson's lame rationalizations. My two cents, which is probably what these comments are worth without a source. Allreet (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Allreet, thanks for your 2 cents worth. You're probably right about Robertson being canny enough to include 4 songs he had authored/co-authored. None of the books comment on this, to my knowledge. The charge by Heylin is that Robertson was staking a phony claim implying that Band and Dylan contributions to TBT were more equal: one third Band to two thirds Dylan. Whereas of course A Tree With Roots tells a very different story. Mick gold (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Heylin on Helm on drums

I finally got around to getting myself a copy of Heylin's Revolution in the Air and duly read the Basement Tapes section. One thing that jumped out at me is that for the songs that Heylin (2009) says Helm might have played drums on, in Note 3 we only have "Apple Suckling Tree" and "Odds and Ends" listed. My interpretation of what he says is that all or any of "Odds and Ends", "Clothes Line Saga", "Apple Suckling Tree" and "Goin' to Acapulco" may have had Helm on drums. Have I misinterpreted what he wrote? Moisejp (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Moisejp, if you wish to re-write Note 3 about Helm's drumming, please feel free. best Mick gold (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've made the change. BTW, my edition of Revolution in the Air seems to be different from yours. Could you double check that in your edition the discussion of all four songs falls within the pages indicated, or if they don't could you adjust the pages accordingly? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In my edition "Goin' To Acapulco" is p. 381, so I've altered that. For comparison, "Like a Rolling Stone" is p.237 and "Wedding Song" is p.449. thanks Mick gold (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations - take 2

Well done, a well deserved FA. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And this time around it worked, well done...Modernist (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all our supporters, co-editors, & collaborators. Mick gold (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for helping to see this through! Yay. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could have fit on one CD

User TFSyndicate has added and re-added the edit "Similar to the Beatles' 1962-1966 and Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits Vol. II, all the selections could fit on a single 80-minute CD, but was nevertheless released on two CDs to match the LP." This edit has several problems. Overall, it suffers from WP:OR:

• There is no source given for the statement that the reason TBT was released on two CDs was to match the LP.
• There is no source given for the length time of 1962–1966 or Greatest Hits Vol. II. It is not clear whether the statement is meant to imply that the reason both of these were released on 2 CDs was similarly to match the LPs; if so, there is no source for this idea either.
• Why even mention that it could have fit on one CD? One suspects there is an underlying implication that the consumer may be getting a bad deal (paying for two CDs rather than one). If so, this does not convey a WP:NPOV that is required by Wikipedia. Or, if this implication was not intended, then the issue goes back to my original question of why even mention it? Who cares how many CDs it is on?
• The flow of where this particular edit was put is not good. The prose talks about Robertson's justifications for including non-Woodstock songs on the compilation in 1975, and suddenly we switch to how many CDs the album consists of.

(Now, if you were to include somewhere (not sure where it would fit, though) that such-and-such noteworthy writer complains that the album could have fit on one CD, with a citation to a reliable source, at least that would not be original research. But even then, it seems to me like such a small issue compared with the issues of integrity of the inclusion of non-Woodstock Band tracks, for example, or the exclusion of key Dylan tracks. Even if there was a source for that, I would argue it's not that important. We can't include every possible thing anyone has ever said or thought about the album. But this paragraph is all hypothetical anyway, because right now such a source is not in the article.) Moisejp (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Basement Tapes. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanheritage.com/email/articles/web/20060729-bob-dylan-motorcycle-woodstock-methamphetamine-robert-shelton-howard-sounes-ed-thaler.shtml

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. 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)