Jump to content

Talk:Tom Waits/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Minneapolis?

Does anyone know anything about the period of time Tom Waits was in Minneapolis? Benandorsqueaks 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of what I've been able to find has been re: "9th and Hennepin" and "Christmas Card from a Hooker in Minneapolis," both for obvious reasons. Are you under the impression that he lived in MN for a period of time?--CoolGuyRH 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo

"The first part of his career was kind of soft and jazzy, but after living Asylum Records and his marriage with Kathleen Brennan (1980), he turned to some more alternate music." --do you mean "leaving" Asylum Records?

Indeed. Thankx.

Step Right Up

Added Step Right Up: The Songs of Tom Waits from June 2004 according to : http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000294TEC/qid=1091384016/sr=1-33/ref=sr_1_2_33/026-1057848-7550051

  • I have removed this as Step Right Up was released in 1995 and was already in the Tribute album list. It would appear that the date in that URL does not represent the original release date of this album. See the Amazon U.S. site where the release date is accurately represented as 7 November 1995. --Daqron 00:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Gigography

I added a gigography section, for information about Waits' tours. Hope this is within what can be accepted for an artist's wikipedia article. I plan to fill in venue information and setlists for the Real Gone Tour as it is progressing. If anyone wants to help out with the older tours, there's a lot of information at [1] and [2], at least. Mortene 08:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Change the photo

The photo of Tom Waits on wikipedia has been on here for quite a long time, and at that its not a great photo of him, he's not performing or looking at the camera. In my opinion I think it would be best to put up a photo of Tom that catches him at his best passionately performing on stage instead of him looking bored looking off to his left. Iscream22 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a freely-licensed photo that you feel is more appropriate, please add it.—Chowbok ☠ 18:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Shrek 2 addition

I'm not sure how to format this... Tom Waits had a cameo in Shrek 2 (as the Pirate at the Piano). I think it would be nice to add this.

I just checked and it's already included down with all the movies he has done.

Tom Waits also appeared in the movie "Shorts", I think it was called, directed by Robert Altman. He was in a memorable scene with Lily Tomlin. Too bad this bio doesn't include some examples of his writing, some of my favorites (from Looking for the Heart of Saturday Night) are: "He spends the facts of his life like small change on strangers. And paws his inside peacoat pocket for a welcome 25 cents, eggs over easy and a package of Kents as he dreams of a waitress with Maxwell House eyes, marmalade thighs and scrambled yellow hair, who wears a rhine-studded monogram that says "Irene" as she wipes a whisp of dishwater blonde from her eyes...

Database error?

I'm getting this error when I try to view the article page: "A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "Parser::replaceLinkHolders". MySQL returned error "1053: Server shutdown in progress (10.0.0.24)"." Anyone know what's going on? 24.222.61.38 19:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I could view the article just fine when I now tried. From (limited) experience as an ordinary user on Wikipedia, it seems database errors tend to crop up when the load is high. Mortene 19:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Over-linked

This article is *way* over-linked. The superfluous links just make it harder to read, and add nothing of value. It is not necessary to hyperlink "trilogy", "country", "jazz", "Cult Following", "radio", "supporting actor", "19xx", "soundtrack", etc.

  • I agree, and have removed many of them (dates and places in particular). Subjects which are directly music-related I have kept, as these seem relevant to an article about a musician. Squiddy 17:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

music played briefly in fight club when they enter lou's tavern. "Goin' out west"

There also the matter of the external links. Fan blogs aren't exactly encyclopedic material and the same goes for the Live Journal link. As for the link to an article stating that Tom waits hasn't had fun in forty years well...

These three would do:

And this one has tabs, which the others don't:

BobbyJTHais 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well since there are no objections...BobbyJTHais 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately no tabs there and the page seems to be poorly maintained...

Removed copyedit tag

I've tidied up the article a bit, but I don't think it really needed the 'copyedit' tag even before I did any work on it, so I've removed the tag. It was a bit over-wikified, so I've removed a lot of links (dogs?! sailors?!) --Squiddy 17:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:TomWaitsInConcert2004.jpg - as far as I know, no official videos of his Real Gone tour have been released. This also looks more like bootleg quality rather than an official release. Why not use a screencap from a legally released video by him rather than an illegal recording of one of his shows? --Michiel Sikma 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Because he supports bootlegging of his live shows.--pogonrudie

Songs listed in Filmography

I'm not sure I agree with the listing of individual songs under the Filmography section. It seems more appropriate to list songs like "Soldier's Things" from 'Jarhead' and the two tracks from 'Dead Man Walking' under Contributions instead. The current method also creates issues with duplicate entries in Discography and Filmography ('One From the Heart' and 'Night on Earth'). I can't find another actor/songwriter whose bio is handled in this way. Wondering what others think about the best way to handle this. --Daqron 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I could swear that I saw an episode of Good Times way back in the day where Waits cameoed, playing The Piano Has Been Drinking. I can't find a reference to this episode. Perhaps it was a different show? Also, I recall seeing a video on The Cutting Edge on MTV circa 1986-7 of Waits playing piano and singing. All I remember was that it was dimly-lit, and filmed in black-and-white. Can anyone shed any light on these hazy memories of mine? -- madhatte

Photo caption awkward

The text under the photo makes it seem like he said the quote in 1949.

POV check

I've added the above tag due to the non-neutral tone of the article (especially the introduction). JoachimK 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems alright to me. Can you say more about what you think is POV about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Some biased phrases stood out to me when I read the intro, e.g "immediately recognizable", "Waits's songs are known", "His songs are best known to the general public", "they have occasionally achieved". Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic. JoachimK 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As a long time reader of Wikipedia, but only a recent contributor, my impression of those phrases is that they're rather innocuous. Some of them might be reworded better, but I don't think they greatly compromise the article. "Best known to the general public" is the only one that seems "iffy," but that's just my opinion. Mohr Stoutbeard 05:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to agree that yes, you are being overly pedantic. Or something :-). In all but the "immediately recognizable" case, they are portions of very factual statements, implying no biased point of view. "Wait's songs are known" for whatever they're known for, just as everything in wikipedia is known for something. "His songs are best known to the general public" as covers, not best known as in he's the best. If "they have occasionally achieved" (commercial success, or whatever) is POV, then wikipedia is in serious trouble. I do think the "immediately recognizable" was a poor choice of words, I've changed it. Barring further concerns, I think the POV tag should be removed. - Crenner 08:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The POV tag is not needed, I think. The wording can seem a bit opinionated, but it is as accurate as can be when discussing such abstract issues. It can't really be argued that his voice is not extremely recognizable and that many know only the covers of his work. The only way around this would be to cut all the stuff out, but that would just handicap the article and I doubt rewording would provide a substantial improvement. --PredatorOC

I took the liberty of removing the POV check template, since there seems to be a concensus that it is not needed and the article was reworded a bit to conform to NPOV. --PredatorOC

"Franks" or "Frank's"

I think the title of the album is "Franks Wild Years" and NOT "Frank's Wild Years". No apostrophe! Check in this webpage: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:jvp1z87ajyv6

or directly in the album's cover: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000001FSR/102-2536128-2639310?v=glance&n=5174 (which is also shown in the wikipedia page).

If I'm right, then you should also change the name of/link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank%27s_Wild_Years

Notice, however, that there is a song called "Frank's Wild Years" (with apostrophe) in the album Swordfishtrombones.

I would tend to agree that the title of the album is "Franks Wild Years," sans apostrophe, because that is how it is displayed on the cover and the spine. By the same reasoning, the song on the album should be listed as "Franks Theme," as that is how it is listed on the tracklisting. (However, I can't attest to whether the song on "Swordfishtrombones" has an apostrophe in the listing or not, as I don't have that album on hand.) Mohr Stoutbeard 05:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed. I've moved the article and changed the references that I've found so far. --Michiel Sikma 10:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Captain Beefhart

It seems a strange assertion that Tom Waits was introduced to the music of Captain Beefhart by K. Brennan in the early eighties. Herb Cohen had been his manager since 1969 and he also managed Beefhart and Zappa. Can someone shed some light on this?

The book "Innocent When You Dream" contains an interview by Jonathan Valania from Magnet Oct-Nov 2004 with Mr Waits:
JV: How did you first encounter Captain Beefheart?
TW: We had the same manager back in 1975-76.
JV: You weren't acquainted with his music in the sixties?
TW: Nope. I became more acquainted with him when I got married. My wife had all his records.
With a caveat that Mr Waits loves to tell interesting lies, that seems fairly conclusive. I apologise if this transcription is considered breach of copyright, but I believe it falls into the "fair use" category. Tepidd 10:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - some time ago now

I tested the Wikipedia correction process while reporting for this article. After logging on, without giving an e-mail address, I edited the entry dedicated to musician Tom Waits. In a section on the artist in the 1990s, I wrote that Waits had played a concert with Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, and Mr. Ed (the talking horse). Within 24 hours, the Presley and Mr. Ed references were removed, but the Elvis Costello citation -- also false, but not as glaringly so -- remained." [3]
Please don't "test" the correction process. --Michiel Sikma 10:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's probably because Tom Waits did actually play a concert with Elvis Costello in the '90's, the Roy Orbison tribute- A Black & White Night. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cast-crew/B0000203YR/ref=imdbdppd_castcrew_1/104-5361500-7045565?ie=UTF8

Quote

I added the artist box of Tom Waits at the top of this article and gave it a quote from Blood Money. But now I'm thinking that there might be more appropriate quotes by him that could be put there. A good candidate might be "Never let the weeds get higher than the garden, always keep a sapphire in your mind." (or replace sapphire with diamond to incorporate the second sentence as well, which is a more popular paraphrase of this quote). Do you have suggestions? --Michiel Sikma 10:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a quote from him in an interview, not necessarily a song lyric. Since Blood Money was written for a play, the quote is essentially a reflection of that character's point of view, not necessarily that of Tom Waits.Zevaluz 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to suggest his famous line from his appearance on Fernwood Tonight; "I'd rather a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." 66.158.212.68 11:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont think that "I'd rather a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." should be a quote, as this is 1) indicative of early tom not the grand-tom. 2) It is not originally his. 3)Seems a bit silly. My suggestion is none, how can one quote really sum tom up, also if one is placed there it will be of eternal debate much like peoples name and tag lines from Microsoft messenger. --Spud85 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. That's not something originally from him. By having it there, wikipedia attributing to him when it's not his.

We're A Happy Family

What about his contributions to "We're A Happy Family: A Tribute To The Ramones"? He covered "The Return of Jackie & Judy."

Movie Star too

Tom Waits was also in the movies 12 Monkeys & Bram Stoker's Dracula. If I am not mistaken. He was also the mad scientist in Mystery Men.

Tom Waits did not appear in the film 12 Monkeys---his song "Earth Died Screaming" was used in the film, though. And, sign your comments on the talk page.--Charles 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Waits Birthplace

According to Tom Waits HIMSELF (David Letterman Dec 1983) He WAS born in Valparaiso Indiana. I would think Tom knows better than you where he was born. Maybe YOU should get your facts straight. You know just because its listed in a biography somewhere, doesn't make it so. GOOD DAY.Ed 1961 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)ed1961

Tom Waits told a story that he was born in the backseat of a taxi in Valparaiso, Indiana. Yes, he sure did. But, it was just that, a story. He tells a lot of crazy stories, many of which are not true. I used to live in Valparaiso, lived in that area most of my life, and I can tell you that there was no taxi service in that area until just a few years ago. And, if Tom Waits had been born there, I would have known about it long before now. He was born in Pomona, California. If you'd like, I suppose we can search for a copy of his birth certificate. Will that satisfy you?! --Charles 04:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do not delete other people's posts on the discussion page---that is called vandalism.--Charles 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

??? I assume "read" is a typo in the above comment ... - DavidWBrooks 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, definitely a typo. I think I meant to type "redo" other people's posts... it was late at night, I was tired, and I was typing too fast because I was angry. My point was that Ed 1961 had deleted my comment to Dagonet about changing Tom Waits' birthplace, which Ed had already done, yet again. At some point, this nonsense has to stop. Tom Waits was born in Pomona, California. If we cannot get a basic piece of information like place and date of birth right, then there is no point in this article even existing.--Charles 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I retract the typo comment. Looking at the history of the talk page, I see that user 71.210.90.215 changed my response to Ed 1961. If you look at the history page, you can see it for yourself. This nonsense is out of control. It is time for an administrator to get involved. --Charles 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've restored Theoldanarchist's comments to their original state, and I'm keeping an eye on 71.210.90.215. Please feel free to let me know if any administrator assistance is required. For now it seems ok; let's just all be dilligent about reverting vandalism. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

As you may have noticed, I cleaned up the talk page a little. I added titles to a couple of stray comments at the top, deleted two unsigned comments about an edit made a long time ago, and made a few minor changes to the layout. I think it makes the page easier to read. Any comments? --Charles 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, Talk page changes are frowned on, since they're supposed to be kept as-is for a historical record, rather than tidied up like an article. Except for deleted the unsigned comments, your changes were fine, IMHO, but you should probably return those two, even if they seem pointless. You never know; they might prevent somebody from repeating an argument in a year. - DavidWBrooks 11:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, David, I did not realize that you had responded to this comment of mine. If I had, I would have replied much more quickly. I honestly do not know how to undo the changes I made to the talk page, and I apologize if the changes I made (done at a time when I was much less familiar with wiki-etiquette) were inappropriate or thoughtless. Can you point me to the relevant page that explains policy on talkpages? Thanks for your time. --Charles 06:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm 3 months late coming in on this particular conversation, but I wanted to mention that when a Talk page gets too long, but you want to keep conversations intact for "historical" purposes, archiving is a good idea. - Ugliness Man 10:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Post-archiving note: I've put the text back. Graham87 11:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

I think the opening paragraphs (I believe there are three of them before the table of contents) are too long, and full of a lot of information that can be dealt with in the main body of the article. Since there is already a filmography section, it is redundant to list so many films in one of the early paragraphs. A mention that he is also an actor is appropriate, and a couple of the important films in which he has appeared. Likewise, perhaps there should be a section devoted to mentioning the great number of people and bands who have covered Tom's songs, but listing 8 or 10 of them right at the outset seems a little much to me. Any thoughts? --Charles 06:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have been doing my best to keep the numbers down, though there is a widespread tendency for people to put in the film/cover with which they are most familiar, without realising that it isn't notable enough to go in the introduction. For reference, here is my opinion on the list of covers which should (or should not) go in:
* Eagles covering 'Ol 55: Exclude, because it was not a single (just an album track and B-side), and was not a famous recording according to the Eagles, On the Border or the allmusic biography/discography. Allmusic justifiably mention it because it was one of the earliest covers of Waits' songs,
* Springsteen covering Jersey Girl: Include. Released only as a B-side, but Springsteen covered this song in many live concerts (according to Cover Me).
* Rod Stewart covering Downtown Train: Include. Very famous performer, top ten hit.
I think those two are sufficient in the intro, and I haven't heard of any others which are more notable. --VinceBowdren 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And while I'm in the mood, here's my current opinion on films worth mentioning in the intro (or not):
* Dracula (1992 film): Include. Successful (and award-winning) mainstream film, Waits has a significant supporting role, puts in performance described by IMDB as "memorable".
* The Fisher King (film): Exclude: Waits has 'a small uncredited role as a disabled veteran'.
* Down by Law (film): Include. Waits has leading role and contributes significant music, film is award-winning (e.g. nominated for Palme d'Or) though not a mainstream hit.
* Rumble Fish: Exclude. Waits has very small role.
I don't see anything else in the filmography worth mentioning in the intro. --VinceBowdren 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the exclusion of The Eagles. I think it's significant to mention because The Eagles were (and still are) huge, and them covering a Waits song, especially so early in his career, was a big deal, whether or not the cover was a huge radio hit at the time. A few months ago I was in a department store and the Eagles version of that song came on the sound system, wedged right in between "Midnight at the Oasis" and "Solsbury Hill". I don't know how much bearing this anecdote has on the article, but it sure made me happy, and in my mind elevates the song from an obscure B-side to radio material, albeit more than 30 years late. The point being made when this discussion started was that "listing 8 or 10 of them right at the outset seems a little much". I agree, but I feel that mentioning The Eagles, Springsteen and Stewart is fairly concise (3 is usually a nice tidy number and emotionally satisfying for such things).
I agree with your opinions on the four movies you mention, but I also think that Mystery Men is worthy of mention, since it was also a highly-promoted movie (I can't stand Ben Stiller, but he is a pretty big draw), and Waits' role was secondary, but not minor. And, once again, mentioning Mystery Men along with Dracula and Down by Law would give us the tidy number 3. - Ugliness Man 04:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Eagles cover was helpful to Waits at that stage of his career so is well worth its mention in the Early Career section, but the intro sentence says "His songs are best known to the general public..." and the Eagles cover of 'Ol 55 simply isn't that well known to the general public as far as I can tell. --VinceBowdren 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all of your recommendations, Vince. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoist That Rag

In the section that discusses Real Gone, I have removed two unsourced edits having to do with the song "Hoist That Rag" and its alleged anti-war theme. If some reference can be found for this (which seems unlikely, since Waits himself denies it) it can be returned. In the meantime, it is just opinion. ---Charles 04:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, Waits denies it? He stated in Magnet magazine in 2004 that both Hoist That Rag and Sins of my Father are both political. [4] Please cite your source that says he denies it. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this response. I have seen this in print somewhere, but cannot find it anywhere now. I think the songs are elliptical, not explicit. Though, I appreciate the fact that you have a source, and I will defer to it. Thanks. ---Charles 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Article length

It's a bit long, and you get an automatic warning about this when you make an edit. I think we could usefully separate out some of the content into minor articles, and just keep a more concise summary in the main article. For example, the list of film contributions. Thoughts, anybody? --VinceBowdren 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and think you are on the right track. ---Charles 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Purina

The "lawsuits" section mentions the various companies that Waits succesfully sued over advertising issues, but I find it interesting that there's no mention anywhere of the ad that he did for Purina back in 1981. [5] [6] (I know there's a few people on the comments page of the YouTube link insisting that it's not Waits, but then again YouTube is inhabited by people who will swear on their lives that Enya sang the lead vocals in the eponymous song by Adiemus... the first link provides more reliable information, the YouTube link is more for curiosity's sake)

He didn't write the text (that credit goes to William Lower), but it was indeed his voice. I'm not saying that this makes him a hypocrite, like some critics might, because he was a different person in 1981 (and he wasn't very well-off financially, and he was recently married which furthered his financial needs), but it's not very balanced for the article to make it seems like he's totally 100% anti-advertising and has never done an ad of his own accord.

Unfortunately, I'm not that good at adding stuff like this to these long articles, and it wouldn't seem appropriate to include it under the "lawsuits" heading, so I'll leave it in the hands of more capable editors. - Ugliness Man 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Muppet Inspiration

It says that that muppet was inspired by Tom Waits yet the article on the muppet says he was created in 1962, that's a significant number of years before Tom Waits entered the public arena it seems to me 213.202.147.186

Hmmm, that does make it an awkward claim. I wouldn't be surprised if Waits and previous Waits-like artists had inspired Rowlf, but after a cursory search for sources turned up nothing but unsourced speculation, I'm tempted to say we should pull the claim until we get evidence. A quote from Jim Henson, say. Note that the Rowlf the Dog history shows that there used to be an unsourced 'inspired by Tom Waits' claim in there which was pulled for lack of evidence. --VinceBowdren 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted an anonymous users deletion of that reference. Now, per this discussion, it looks like I should revert myself. This makes sense, and the information should never have made it into the article without some kind of credible reference. However, in my own defense, any deletion of material without an edit summary, or some kind of explanation, is to my mind, questionable. ---Charles 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson Sings Tom Waits

Why was this deleted from the 'Tribute Albums' section? --DavidHay 23:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia is not the place for rumours of tribute albums. When it is released, it can be listed here. --VinceBowdren 08:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Industrial

A previous edit describing Waits' style as 'industrial' was deleted as 'nonsense'. Not all industrial music sounds like NIN or Ministry; Waits' use of found instruments puts him pretty solidly in that category (towards the Einstürzende Neubauten end), and googling 'tom waits industrial' will pull up plenty of examples where his style's been described as industrial. --Calair 00:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphans - major release or collection?

A couple of times now, people have added Orphans to the major releases list. Although it is technically a collection (and is already listed under collections), I am coming round to the opinion that it should be counted as a major release - it has been promoted quite heavily, it has its own tour, and the tracks are previously unreleased. Any objections? --VinceBowdren 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should remain as a collection. Collections are often promted heavily when they're "outtakes" or "rarities" collections of artists that have been around for a long time ("best of" collections not promoted so much usually). And while it is unusual for a tour to be built around a collection, that doesn't change the nature of the release itself. Really, I would guess that the people who keep adding it to the "normal" releases, more often than not, are simply trying to be helpful, not realizing it's already listed. That's the drawback to having something that anyone can edit, some people who try to make a positive contribution aren't always observant enough to not be redundant. - Ugliness Man 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of new material on it that hasn't been released before. I'd say it qualifies as a new album. --Doctor Sunshine 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
My preference would be to leave it in the collections list. It occurs to me that we could change the section title from 'Major releases' to 'Albums', just to make it clearer. --VinceBowdren 19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
On the album's official website[7] it states that more than half of the songs, 30 out of 56, are new and Waits and his wife have been working on it for the past three years. In my mind a collection implies something the label compiled rather than something the artist(s) put together. It belongs in major releases. --Doctor Sunshine 20:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It most definitely belongs in major releases. The albums contain new material, which is one thing, and it is also being marketed as a major release. Compilations hardly do get marketed; it seems awkward, for example, to call Used Songs Tom Waits' "latest and greatest" (at the time it came out). It really boils down to whether we can legitimately say, as a marketeer, that this new album is a "latest and greatest". This isn't the case for Used Songs, which is just a collection of things we already had, but I certainly believe that it is the case for Orphans. It's been widely reported on in various (good-quality and reliable) publications here in the Netherlands. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Major releases appearing in wrong place

For some reason the list of major releases is appearing at the very bottom of the page, beneath the external links. I don't know how to fix it, but hopefully someone else can. Shambolic Entity 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Artist template

I suggest removal of the template, or at least some parts of it. Perhaps leave just the photo in its place. For example, as agreed above, the quote is a bit pointless, and describing Waits as Jazz/Blues conveys no useful information at all. Shambolic Entity 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo?

Does anyone know when, and why, the photograph was deleted? ---Charles 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but usually such deletions occur before there was no copyright information on the photo's page. Those cases are deleted without discussion, which can be annoying. - DavidWBrooks 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's two points I was referred to recently, Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy and Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples. What's needed is permission from the copyright holder, ANTI-, I suppose, or a fan photo which is released into the Public domain or under the GNU license. Doctor Sunshine 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion/race

Is the man Jewish, someone tolde me he was, but I would like a source... -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.185.71 (talk)

I've never heard or read anything about him being Jewish. Does it really make any difference? ---Charles 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Often the family background is relevant, in terms of what musical upbringing a person has had (for example the middle eastern influences you can hear in Dick Dale's music. But no, I don't think Waits is Jewish. --VinceBowdren 09:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems unlikely, from statistics alone. His father was Irish and his mother Norwegian, and both countries have just a very, very small number of Jews. About 0.03% of the Norwegian population are Jews, and something comparable for Ireland. From his topics & lyrics, it seems way more likely that he was more in contact with Catholics in his upbringing, which also makes more sense wrt his father being Irish. Mortene 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So Tom Waits is not Jewish?

I'm pretty sure he's some type of Christian Scott 01:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

i dunno that i'd go that far. agnostic maybe, but i highly doubt he's a by-the-book christian. most "christians" would be very uncomfortable with some of his recurring lyrical themes. he has done some gospel inspired songs, but i don't think that you could call the man a christian because of that. i think he may be, but only very loosely, and like i said, i find it more likely that he's an agnostic or even full-blown atheist.68.255.251.75 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you're talking more about what you'd personally like him to be. Because somehow you jump from a loose Christian to "more likely" an agnostic, then "even a full-blown atheist". Also, the content of his lyrics and your assumed 'Christian' reaction to those lyrics is irrelevant. Again, you sound more interested in placing your beliefs on Tom is (or should be) rather than what his actual views are. As a side, very little of his lyrics would lead me to think that he's a "full blown atheist". -- Jorge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.134.131 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Very little of his lyrics? That's interesting. I always saw him as either an atheist or, if talking purely metaphorically, a deist. Songs like 'What Keeps Mankind Alive' and 'God's Away on Business' really strike out that he is not religious in the slightest, and quite strongly outline the possiblity he does not believe in a deity even without religion. Anonymous 13:57, 6 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.130.12 (talk)
You're reading stuff into it. If he didn't believe in God then who's he complaining to? I don't believe in elves. I'm not going to write a song about they're not living up to their end of the bargain. You see him as either an atheist or a deist? So, you're basically saying, "I think he either believes in God or doesn't believe in God".... bravo. So you're really saying nothing then. Jorge

I have heard that Tom Waits is Born Again Christian is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.179.170 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that you have heard it. But whether he is one, or not, is something different. I don't know if he is religious or not, and perhaps that's as it should be. Anything else is hypothesis and opinion. PårWöet (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Day After Tomorrow

It's widely been discussed - and the reference appears on this page - that the song "Day After Tomorrow" could as easily refer to the Iraq war as to the American Civil War: 'The song doesn't mention the Iraq war, and, as Tom Moon writes, "it could be the voice of a Civil War soldier singing a lonesome late-night dirge."'

Well and good, and the quote is certainly out there, but this reading may be argued against by the line, "My plane will touch down on the day after tomorrow."

True, the song isn't as out-and-out political as "The Road to Peace", but I don't believe it refers to the Civil War.

204.191.165.69 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, some TW quotes on the song here. --Calair 04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Record lables in lawsuit section

A list of the record lables that have published Waits is, rather irrelevantly it seems, squeezed in between two related paragraphs in the lawsuits section. I would suggest whoever put it there find a more appropriate place. O0pyromancer0o 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Down by Law

I have just watched the dvd Down by Law with Tom Waits, Robert Begnini and I can't find any reference to this movie on this page. I'd be very interested to know what year it was made. 218.101.86.47 10:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is mentioned in the article, it's the seventh item in the filmography section. Second, this is Wikipedia, a very searchable all-around database. If you type "Down by Law" in the search field near the top of this page on the left, and click "Go", you'll be taken to a page which contains links to 3 articles that the phrase "Down by Law" refers to. The second one is the movie you're talking about, and the article tells you what year it was made. Of course, I could just tell you that it was made in 1986, but then you wouldn't learn anything that way, would you? - Ugliness Man 10:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics

I added the couple of lines toward the end of the 2000s about a couple of political songs on Orphans.SmokeyTheCat 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the spelling (it took two attempts to get it right) of Bertolt Brecht and added Kurt Weill as co-writer of song. Also, I removed the Marxist label from Brecht. This seems an accurate label to apply to him, but it strikes an odd note to apply it as the sole label. I think your point is that it's a political song, but the effect of "Marxist Bertolt Brecht" doesn't quite seem right to me. Rickterp 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. ThanksSmokeyTheCat 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo idea

i have no idea how to post this,

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=50517492&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1662536&size=o

thank you—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.0.152.223 (talk • contribs) 22:11, June 2, 2007 (UTC-6)

I don't think either of those are very relevant to the article; in any event, we can't use those pictures because they're not licensed for commercial use, or for anyone to make derivative works of them. —Chowbok ☠ 03:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.freewebs.com/waits/tom%20waits%202.JPG better picture —24.171.145.116 01:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This could, with some more work, be a featured article

It's got a wealth of information, but just needs more sources and a bit of cleanup - what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, not too far off at all - at there moment there are alot of strands of information:short paragraphs following a sort of "and then this happened and then that happened" structure which is a bit stop-start and staccato. if they can pulled together to give the article some flow and a red line going throughout- and if they can be properly referenced - there's no reason why not. however i suggest that before it can be a featured article the absolute over abundance of waits' albums and contribution will have to be moved to a seperate article called "Tom Waits Discography", with just a featured discography here. sound good?
right, let's go! Warchef (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm game as well. Where do we start? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Just one or two starting points:
  1. not enough info on Rain Dogs, frank's Wild Years and Black Rider - obviously info just still be brief and carefully chosen, but as is there's not enough info on these albums for the article to be representative
  2. too many one line paragraphs which add up to essentially a bullet point without the bullet point - the closer the article gets to the present day the more this is apparent. for example: a one-line paragraph about a waits song being used in the tv show the wire? can this be incorporated somewhere meaningful, or should it be deleted? etc.
  3. there are too many irrelevant quotes-waits is a great wit who says a great many funny and interesting things, but, for example, a random quote about bagpipes has a very weak argument re: notability and relevance
  4. references, references references - it's a thankless job and a bit of a hard slog, but the article will never be featured unless all of the info is properly referenced - be it from websites or waits bios. the important thing to always remember about wikipedia is what's not important is the truth, the only thing that's important is verifiability.
  5. as i said above, need to create a new article for the full waits discography listed here, as it's ridiculous to use up half an article on what is essentially a list. then we have a featured discography here with major releases, and link to the full discography page as a reference.
they're a few of my suggestions: and you know, just generally following the wikipedia guidelines of WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTABILITY, and etc. any other ideas?Warchef (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
All of this sounds good to me, and all of it is doable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and created a Tom Waits discography article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
cool, I also moved the filmography over there, with the precedent of Bob Dylan discography. In general I'm going to use the Bob Dylan article as a template for us here, I think it's an excellent article (which is also featured) and if we can bring "Waits" up to its standards and take a few hints from it (especially in the biography section) we should moving in the right direction.Warchef (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was using the Dylan article as my example as well! I did not notice that the Dylan discography article included his filmography, though. Apparently, I did not scroll down far enough. At any rate, no matter. On we go. You have been doing excellent work, by the way. It's been hard to keep up. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks very much - clearly i have no life :) i've just been adding things that are missing as i see them, and a few references as i go along. I hope once the major points have been fully addressed to get going on linking them up properly - instead of just "in 19xx this album came out, in 19yy that album came out", to fill in the gaps with proper biographical information. still, one step at a time!Warchef (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit vs. Frito-Lay

I am a little disappointed that this is the kind of topic to take up in relation to this living legend. Nonetheless, in the Lawsuits section, third paragraph, it seems to say that Mr Waits was awarded $2.6M. By reference to the footnote given (and it is often a surprisingly good read), damages appear to add up to $2.375M. Mr Waits was awarded legal costs for the appeal, and an original award of legal fees was affirmed. The reduction was because an award under the Lanham Act was found to have been duplicative of his award for voice misappropriation (which appears to mean that he could sue for infringement of his tradmark, because his award had included a fair market value for his services). This seems to be confirmed by Robert Wilonsky in Dallas Observer, May 6, 1999 (sourced from Innocent When You Dream Ed. Mac Montandon 2005) with:

In the end, the jury awarded Waits $2.5 million in damages, which was knocked down to $2.375 million by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It goes on to say that:

In January 1993, the US Supreme Court let stand the lower court's ruling.

As the reference to $2.375M was from October 1992, the Supreme Court ruling seems to confirm the $2.375M ruling, although (for all I know) it may mean the $2.5M mentioned in the Dallas Observer article was reinstated. I didn't pick up where the $2.6M in the current article comes from, but perhaps someone with a lot more knowledge of US law (than the no I possess) could look it up.....

I don't think any of this detail belongs in the article (as it will always exist in legal records anyway), but as an official judgement on the value of damage done to his image, I think it is important to get the final figure right. Tepidd (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Had I seen this message sooner, I would have responded. All indications are that you are correct. I do not know where the $2.6 million figure came from. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Official site?

Why do we have two different "official sites" listed? One is in the infobox (http://www.tomwaits.com/), and the other at the top of the list of external links (http://www.anti.com/artists/view/1). Clearly, there can only be one "official" site, right? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Always Keep a Diamond in Your Mind

This lovely bio needs one small update. It says:

"'Always Keep a Diamond in Your Mind,' which Waits wrote for Wilson's Woyzeck, did not appear on Blood Money; however it did emerge on Solomon Burke's Don't Give Up on Me album of the same year. While Waits has played the song live a number of times,[26][27] no official version has ever been released.'"

In fact, the song now is available on "Healing the Divide: A Concert for Peace and Reconciliation." Tom and HHDL on the same stage--wow. And of course, from a Buddhist perspective, Tom could not have chosen a better song. --Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.18.96 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Screamin' Jay Hawkins

I removed the following sentence from the '90s section during a copy-edit:

Screamin' Jay Hawkins continued his practise of covering Waits songs on his album Somethin' Funny Goin' On with a version of Waits' 1978 song "Whistlin' Past the Graveyard."

This was sitting there, all by itself, in the middle of the section. Certainly, it belongs in the article somewhere, but not there, and not worded in that manner. Anyone have any ideas? Is this dealt with already, in some discussion of artists who have covered Waits' music? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that. i agree that the wording was far from great, but i think it could stay there, re-worded (see below) in the life and career, at 1994 (when Something Funn Goin On and the Waits cover within were released); as also, Waits didn't exactly do anything else that year, or really until 99, so covers such as Hawkins' were important for keeping him in the public eye, and also I don't like the big vacuum that's currently there between 93 and 99. it also refers back to the entry 2 or so paragraphs prior, which mentions a couple of Waits covers Hawkins did in 91 (especially notable because of their role in the Levis lawsuit). anyway, i'm an inclusionist, so i think that anything that pertains to waits is worthy of inclusion, including covers which demonstrate the extent to which waits' songs become part of the culture; ad covers by Hawkins - one of Waits' biggest heroes and influences - demonstrates how Waits' infuences had become his peers. however, i know that everyone else is not of the same opinion, and if there's consensus to remove of course i'll go along with that.
The other option is that we start a cover versions section, although I wonder how we could keep control over something like that, and coming up with a set of criteria for inclusion for such a section can be difficult and arbitray, but if it's the consensus and someone starts it, i'll contribute as much as i can. although i prefer including relevant covers in the life and career section.
as regards wording, I suggest:

"After 1993 Waits went into a semi-retirement until he returned in 1999 with his next album Mule Variations. 1994, for example, saw no Waits related releases, with the exception of two notable covers: Johnny Cash's recording of the Waits-penned "Down There By The Train" (to date unrecorded by Waits himself) for his "American Recordings album, and Screamin' Jay Hawkins's version of Waits' 1978 song "Whistlin' Past the Graveyard" on Hawkins' '94 album Somethin' Funny Goin' On.

what do you think? Warchef (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase semi-retirement, as it's something we've added to him, and I'm sure he was still doing things, just not releasing. I know where you're coming from, but the phrase just feels POVy (and I realise that isn't a word!). The other is why are those two covers more 'notable' than any other covers that may have been done in the period, that we may not happen to have heard? Ged UK (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that semi-retirement is a poor choice of words, however there is a marked difference between the 87-92 break between albums - in which waits worked on loads of projects, scored two plays and acted in numerous films - and the 93-99 break - in which Waits' only projects were contributing "The Fall Of Troy" and "Walk Away" to the Dead Man Walking OST in 1996 ( a charity album - Benefit for: "Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation" and "Hope House"), contributinh "Little Drop of Poison" to the "The End of Violence" and accompanied Ramblin' Jack Elliott on his song "Louise" on his "Friends Of Mine" album (98). Considering how prolifically busy Waits had been his whole career up to that point, a handful of songs in 5 years is tantamount to a semi-retirement of sorts; but it's sort of loaded language. What's better? A creative break? hmmm, the words fail me at the moment. Maybe just say that he went on a break and keep it simple. Waits' line to the press when he came back with MV was that he "got caught in traffic", which I think is pretty funny.
As regards notability of covers, yeah, i don't know. I think that most people consider being covered by Johnny Cash on his hugely critically acclaimed "American Recordings" series notable; and especially as it's an otherwise unreleased Waits composition. Also there's a precedent in this entry: "Always Keep a Diamond in Your Mind," which Waits wrote for Wilson's Woyzeck, did not appear on Blood Money; however it did emerge on Solomon Burke's Don't Give Up on Me album of the same year." As regards the Hawkins cover, i believe it's notable for the reasons outlined above, essentially because Hawkins was such a huge influence on Waits (especially on his vocal style) that being covered by him is indicative of how much Waits' stock had risen, and how his his heroes had become his peers; but if the consensus is that t's not notable, hey i won't lose an sleep over it :) peaceWarchef (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Why not something like 'Waits released very little material between 1992 and 1998.', that highlights the gap, but doesn't seek to attribute a reason.
If you've got cites for the critical acclaim for the Cash cover, maybe if we link them that would indeed support notability. With regard to the Hawkins link, I agree with you that it's notable, but the problem is, you and me thinking it amounts to WP:OR, no? Ged UK (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any cites for comments for the Cash and Hawkins covers, so i'll leave them for the moment until i do, although i'd be particularly keen on getting the cash song in, as Waits wrote it specifically for Cash and the album, so i don't think there's any question of notability. however, i have to correct one thing i said above: of course waits' version of "Down There By the Train" has been released on the Orphans collection. As regards the issue of Waits' hiatus, I'd be happy to say that he released very little material, and leave it at that - nice and concise and without any editorial slant. If and when I get any worthwhile references for the other two songs I'll post a suggested sentence up here, but in the meantime I'll continue adding other Waits releases to the bio. cheers for all your help! peace Warchef (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Movies

What do people think about having a separate movie section, rather than having it contained within the decades/phases? I just think it might work better that way, but was curious to know what other editors thought. Ged UK (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking something similar myself. He has appeared in enough films to justify a filmography, so some kind of section that discusses just his film appearances seems like a good idea. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking bout movies, Tom Waits has a starring role in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Parnassus ... Should be added to the filmography - R. 18:23, 16 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.76.199 (talk)

2000s

I cut the following from the "2000s" section:

Waits also provided guest vocals on the song "Pray" by The Book of Knots on their album Traineater.

Can anyone confirm this? The band does not have an article, apparently, and there is no reference given. I have never heard of the band, but that does not necessarily mean anything. Anyone have any ideas about this? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference on Anti's website http://www.anti.com/catalog/view/73/Traineater/?notes=true which looks pretty reliableGed UK (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. I will add it to the article. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

More Primus?

Maybe you can put that Tom Waits appear in the Primus videoclip "Over The Falls", and also sings in the Primus song "Coattails of a dead man" (and also produced by him). -Fly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.176.159 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NPR has a 2 1/2 hr. concert (Glitter and Doom) in Atlanta available. I think it should be linked on the main page even though it is already linked on the G&D page. Kdammers (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Waits Library

The Tom Waits Library seems to be defunct, and any and all links thereto are now broken. Anyone know anything about this? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's now been a year since I first made this comment. There are several references in this article that link to this now-defunct webpage. Clearly, these need to be change to other sources. Does anyone have any comment on this? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

apostrophe s

Some of you will notice the sudden appearance of seeing an apostrophe s after Waits's last name. There's some discussion about why names that an with an s -- Richards, Waters, Waits, etc. -- should have an apostrophe s for the possessive case (whereas "The Rolling Stones" would not). Here's the link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mysloop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysloop (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Liza Minelli

Since when have they been married then??!! I am no expert on Tom but I know this isn't true. Boils (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Is This Article So Long?

It is amazing that a talented musician with a bad voice like Tom Waits has one of the longest articles on Wikipedia... While his name is obviously more well-known than his music, one would erroneously think from reading this article that he is a major recording star and/or that he has had a major impact on American music or life - neither of which is true... Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you really don't know what you're talking about.--Woland (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Er, Tom Waits is one of the most well-known musicians in North America the world. I've seen DVDs of him as far back as the 1970s playing to packed houses in North America, Europe, Asia... rootology/equality 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, his voice on all his early work sounds 100% different than his present voice. His voice... got a little taxed along the way. rootology/equality 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, you seem to be under the impression that to be a good singer you need a tone-perfect voice which is not true. And the fact that his article is longer than other recording stars who have sold more is not a criticism of his article, it is a criticism of the other articles. It is not his fault that he has more dedicated fans who are willing to write an article. And what world are you living in? He may not be a major recording star in the sense that he has not sold 100 million records, but he has most certainly had an impact on music. If all you want to do is criticise him, go do it on some forum dedicated to some derivative pop-band. This is not the place for it, and even if it was, it is not warranted. Please, just get lost. Alan16 talkcount 15:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
PS, Rootology, I actually like his voice. I'm not so sure it has been taxed. I think he prefers the guttural voice. Regards. Alan16 talkcount 15:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I hear somebody telling me that something is not worth doing, or is sinful, or is otherwise not a good idea, I have this grinding urge to tell them to stop doing it pronto. In the case of some body who tells me that a Tom Waits article is too long, my advice to him is to make all the others less short. And if a guy doesn't like the sound of a person's voice, the best choice for him is to stop listening to it. The world is full of people who want us to stop doing things because they don't like them. Many of them are older than me, but age is nothing, even if like Mr Waits they are a few days older than I (am). And especially if they aren't. The best reason I can think of for doing some things is because a strange person thinks I should not. Even if I am a couple years late. But I don't need anybody's disapproval to listen to TW. Let's make the article longer. PårWöet (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Discography

I added Tom's studio albums to the discography paragraph in the article, the reason for this is that most (if not all) featured articles about artist (examples: Alice in Chains, Tool, Joy Division, john Mayer, Nine Inch Nails, U2, Radiohead, Metallica, Meshuggah etc) or bands have the studio albums and/or the most important releases listed under that paragraph with link to the mainlist at the top. Roger Workman (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? It's needlessly repetitive. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, this is just a simple list - it doesn't have any particular details. And he makes a point. The standard amongst featured articles is to have the basic list on the artists page, and then a more detailed list elsewhere. You say "So what?", but the fact is that the goal of every article is to become featured article standard, no? Alan16 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the larger point, I believe, is that such a list is not necessary in order to reach FA status. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That is really unknown. If you look at some of the musicians on the list of music featured articles, you'll see that nearly all have a small list of studio albums, with a link to the main list. I don't think it is particularly obtrusive having it in this article. It doesn't slow down the article at all. Alan16 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's needed again - the recordings are already in a summarised list in the template at the bottom of the page, and listed in detail on the discography article. --VinceBowdren (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But the thing is that this is the same for almost all the featured music articles - it seems to be the norm in FAs. Alan16 (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But then again how many FA does not have any albums listed? I havent look through all the featured articles of bands and artist so I could be mistaken but I belive that the only article that doesnt have the most notable albums is Frank Zappa but it's proably becasue of his extensive recordings.... Roger Workman (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Commas

I made minor edits to the 1970's section after noticing that it contained many commas that were unnecessary. I quote as an example: In 1975, Waits moved to the Tropicana Motel on Santa Monica Boulevard[12] and released the double album Nighthawks at the Diner, recorded in a studio with a small audience in order to capture the ambience of a live show. What is the purpose of the comma after 1975? You may pause slightly when speaking this sentence, but that does not require a comma in written English. My extensive revisions of the commas in these paragraphs were lengthily though over, and were reversed in total by RepublicanJacobite. It appears that they have been very active in the creation and maintenance of this page, and may well have originally written the piece I edited. As I said, it was well-written. Perhaps they have become a bit possessive of their work and I would invite others to appraise the overuse of commas elsewhere in the article, as I had only time to check this one small section thoroughly. I am about to return my edits, and I invite RepublicanJacobite, and every other user, to appraise each individual edit and correct further as necessary. Bulk revision of my work is an insult to me and the hour of work it took me. Tepidd (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC) You even removed the separate edit where I moved a comma out of the title of a song! The title was "Sweet and Shiny Eyes", not "Sweet and Shiny Eyes,".Tepidd (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I have since checked out the style guides and I had been unaware that the comma goes inside the quotation marks in America. In Australian English they go outside, so of course we should go with Mr Waits's origin. As for the rest of the commas, I believe they are misplaced throughout much of this article. I would have a go at tidying it up, but it is time consuming and dull and it appears that RepublicanJacobite has taken it upon themself to veto any changes without question or discussion. I retire. I congratulate RepublicanJacobite on your fine work in keeping Wikipedia to yourself.Tepidd (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Skin Lotion Lawsuit?

In the early 1990's following the release of "Night on Earth," a commercial for skin lotion (Lubriderm?) featuring a woman and an alligator illegally used the opening theme from the film soundtrack. I believe legal action was taken by Mr. Waits; unfortunately I cannot find confirmation of this online. Is this verifiable? 75.9.79.39 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of that one. Have you looked on the Tom Waits Library website? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Live performance

I noticed that the article doesn't mention Waits' live performance style anywhere. I'm thinking specifically of his rambling, digressive jokes, but surely there's more stuff to be said. Live performance (as opposed to songwriting, recording or acting) is one of the things Waits does best imo, and it's a shame not to mention it anywhere. I'm not thinking of anything too ambitious, just a single sentence perhaps in the first paragraph. 99.199.191.100 (talk)

Not without a reliable source that says so. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Would Markco1 please come to the talk page and specify which sources in the article he feels are unreliable? I see only one source marked in the article, and it is not being used as a source, it is merely a link to an article to make things easier for the reader. If there are others, it would be good for us to discuss it here. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that there should be no references or citations that refer back to Wikipedia articles. If I am incorrect feel free to remove my update. Possibly there is a better way to do this then doing it through a reference to wiki article. Possibly a discography outside of Wikipedia or a link within the article that does not create a reference. There are two references that link back WIKI: #25 that goes to Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers & Bastards (this is used in the article 5 times) and #9 Step Right Up: The Songs of Tom Waits that I commented on in the article. Cheers Markco1 (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Format issue

At the bottom of the article is a stray "</noinclude>" that I can't fix. Not sure where the formatting problem lies.MartinezMD (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

fixed the template.MartinezMD (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope, thought I had the template fixed. Now 3 </noinclude>'s are showing at the end of it.MartinezMD (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

On April 9, 1977, Tom appeared on Saturday Night Live and performed Eggs and Sausage. This event exposed him to a much broader American audience and ought to be mentioned. IMDb has the reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0694655/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.175.244 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Waits/Archive_1&oldid=1136227517"