User talk:Cbben

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi Cbben! Yes, what you just did is the correct way to contact me, by posting a message on my talk page. Now that I've posted a message here, this has essentially created your own talk page too! :-D This is where other Wikipedians can contact you and as long as you’re signed in, you’ll get a message telling you when someone’s left a new message - which you should get now because I've left this message. One thing though, it's good Wikipedia etiquette to sign and date your posts, both here on private talk pages and also on article talk pages. If you look at my talk page posts you'll see it has my user name, the time I posted, the date and the time zone I'm in. Just copy my signature and edit it to include your own user name and time zone and insert it at the end of all of your talk page posts. You'll have to edit the time and date for yourself each time you post though. My signature follows this sentence. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Actually, I'm telling you a really, really convoluted way of signing your posts. I've just looked it up and there's actually a much, much easier way of signing posts than the one I've been using (doh!). This is an extract from the Wiki guide on how to sign your posts...

There are two ways to sign your posts:

1. At the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.
2. If you are using the edit toolbar option (it usually appears above the edit screen as a default), click the signature icon: , to add the four tildes.

Your signature will appear after you have saved the changes. The end result is the same in both cases.

So there you go...you learn something new every day round these parts! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Inline Citations

Hi! I just wanted to expand on your question re: verifiable references that you asked on the Notorious talk page. I thought it best to post it here, rather than clog up that articles talk page with stuff not directly relevant to the article. Anyway, yes, you're basically right about facts needing reliable, third-party references to be in compliance with Wiki guidelines. In an ideal world, every fact in an article should theoretically have a reference supporting it. Of course this isn't an ideal world and you'll find many, many articles on Wikipedia (especially music articles) that have very little in the way of inline references and quite a few with none at all. Which is shocking – this is music after all...it's damn important and it should be accurate!

As a consequence of this, only really contentious, out of the ordinary or potentially libelous facts absolutely demand an inline reference to support them. But personally, I'm of the opinion that if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well, so I try to reference pretty much everything. Take a look at the "Mr. Tambourine Man" article that myself and Rlendog have been working on over the past few months. We're both as obsessive about inline references as each other and this article is now pretty much a text book case, as far as inline referencing goes...this is what every article on Wikipedia should look like. This article is currently short-listed for being awarded “Good Article” status and has also been featured on the “Did You Know” section of the Wikipedia front page. Which only goes to show how much better the article is now that it meets Wikipedia's standards.

I would say though, just because something is unreferenced, that isn't an excuse to just arbitrarily remove it. Hell, you'd end up removing most of Wikipedia!! The proper process would be to add a tag to any really blatantly contentious or out of the ordinary statement and then leave it for a good few months to see whether another editor addresses the problem by citing a proper reference. Or alternatively, you can go and find a reliable, third-party reference yourself and insert it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hjort & Menck consensus

With regards to your question about whether Hjort and Menck are in agreement over personnel appearing on Notorious and if not, who is correct; I think that depends on their individual sources. As far as I can see, Menck doesn't list any bibliographical information or mention his sources in the 33 1/3 book. It’s tempting to assume that in order to produce such a thorough track-by-track analysis he must've had access to the vintage Columbia Records' studio documentation but I don't know that for sure. I guess it only matters if we find a conflict between the two, in which case, we should just cross that particular bridge when we come to it. With regards your comments re: sampling, yes that's true but it’s not really an issue when talking about older 1960s bands like The Byrds because sampling wasn't really used in those days, at least not in the ubiquitous way that it is in modern recording. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I take your point but actually, I kind of disagree. I don't think it matters at all whether something is mixed very low or not included in the final track, it should still be listed in the article. For example, Leon Russell's electric piano playing on "Mr. Tambourine Man" was mixed out of the final single and album version, but its well documented that he played on the track and therefore should be mentioned as such. Likewise, Gene Clark's middle harmony part on "Mr. Tambourine Man" is so low in the mix as to be virtually inaudible, but there's no way in hell that Clark should be omitted from the session personnel list.

To me, as long as a person played on a track, regardless of how low in the mix their part is, or indeed, even if it’s not present at all, they should still be listed in the interest of completeness. Besides, going by the "listening to things" method is a bit flaky in my opinion. Another person might be able to hear something that we can't. For instance, going back to Clark's harmony part in "Mr. Tambourine Man", it was only after years and years of listening that I managed to pick him out in the mix, but if you'd have asked me before that time I would have said "no, Clark was mixed out all together", and I'd have been wrong.

It's also worth mentioning that only listing items that you personally can hear, rather than what is documented as being on the track, kinda borders on original research...that is to say, that there's no reliable, third-party sources to support your claim - it's just your opinion. I hope you don't think I'm being down on you about this, I know that what you're saying makes a lot of sense and would be fine in the real world, if you were sitting across a pub table supping a pint and talking about The Byrds. But in the world of Wikipedia, if a musician is documented as playing on a track, he should be listed as such. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

First off no I definitely never take offense or feel put down or such. I view healthy debate as just that, and get the feeling you feel the same. I guess part of the question is are we listing session personnel or personnel who are actually on the recording. If it's the former, I don't think that is clear to the public.

Now low in the mix, no matter how low, definitely I would think there should be a listing (a la Clark on Tambourine Man). But if someone plays on a track but is mixed entirely out, that would not be included on album credits of present-day CD liner notes. Also if someone is brought in for an overdub but the overdub is not used, that person never really played on he track -- but is personnel in the sense that he or she was hired. And what of the following scenario?: It is documented that some played on a track but it is also documented that his or her contribution isn't ultimately used at all in the recording.

On a separate note Russell's electric piano definitely is audible on "Mr. Tambourine Man" though, right? I sure hear him (though I may have had to isolate one side to do so).Cbben (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, bottom line, if someone is listed as having played on a recording, whether it be in liner notes, books or on the internet (reliable sources only), then they should be listed. I suppose that you could make mention of someone having been mixed out of a recording in the main body of an article but again, only if you have a reliable, third-party reference to support it. And only if it’s particularly notable…Wiki articles are only meant to be general encyclopedia entries after all, not technical journals.

As a case in point, I've definitely read somewhere (probably in Rogan's Timeless Flight) that Leon Russell's electric piano was mixed out of the finished version of “Mr. Tambourine Man” and I certainly can't hear it myself but you, on the other hand, say you can hear it. We have conflicting opinions and so it's only right that if we did decided that it was worth mentioning the fact that Russell's piano was mixed out, we should go by what Rogan says. Do you see what I'm saying? Can you see what a total quagmire it would all very quickly become if original research was allowed on Wikipedia? I know it's frustrating sometimes but I truly believe that the mantra: "Wikipedia is not concerned with what's true, only with what's verifiable" is the best way to go.

Regarding your question about citing albums, I'm pretty sure that the actual albums themselves are ineligible as references. I've certainly never seen actual musical recordings cited as sources in all my days browsing or editing Wikipedia. Again, I think this is due to them not being considered a reliable, third-party source because, taken to its logical extreme, it could result in an editor saying..."Getting Better" is the worst song on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and then citing the CD as a reference. As if to say "just listen to it...you’ll see that I'm right!" It's just too subjective and not at all reliable or factual. CD or album liner notes, on the other hand, are perfectly acceptable as references because they're verifiable. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see you're point, and I seem to recall T-Bone Burnett saying that for subconscious effect he put things in the first two Gillian Welch albums that you couldn't really hear -- which makes your point all the stronger. Still, in the documentary Blood Brothers on the circa 1994-95 Springsteen recording sessions you see them bring in someone to overdub string synthesizer on "Secret Garden" (or maybe he comes is with the overdubs done, I don't recall). Anyway, there is a scene where the production staff actually takes a vote as to whether to use the overdub and they decide not to. (They do then release the version with string synthesizer overdub as a single or a b-side.) So in this case--if this were all in a book rather than a documentary, let's say--I think the listing of this player should be excluded or marked in some way so as to clarify the player is not on the recording. I mean look, getting back to my friend who is a producer, when I once asked him about one particular song he produced that has no bass he told me "Yeah I tried overdubbing some bass onto it myself but it just got in the way of the rhythm so I didn't use it." Now, presuming this were all documented, should he be listed among the musician personnel as bassist?

What release of "Mr. Tambourine Man" are you listening to? I'm listening to the 18-track CD reissue, and the electric piano is so clear if you listen to the left channel only. Along with bass it's really the dominant instrument on that side from :09. Check :23 and 1:46 (and therearound) in particular. I see from the article on the album that it was remixed for CD. Perhaps the original vinyl or some other CD releases doesn't have the electric piano. Cbben (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what about a documentary, where facts and quotes and such are available -- surely there must be some mechanism for using them as references? Cbben (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And what about, regarding "Ballad of Easy Rider" for example, something such as Live From XM Studios where Roger McGuinn explains the whole story on the writer credit in his spoken introduction of the song? Shouldn't that be eligible as a reference somehow? Cbben (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to keep this as short as I can. As for your friend, yes, I feel he should be listed as having played bass. However, since bass is normally such a common instrument in popular music, I would specify that it was removed from the final track. But that would be more down to the fact that the song is notable for not having any bass, rather than out of a desire to illustrate that some instrumental overdubs had been discarded. As for the Live From XM Studios thing, I've actually put a tag next to this factoid for precisely the reason you're enquiring about. Listing the recording itself is not enough, you need to find a source that specifically states that Roger discusses this subject on the album. If that's not possible, then that sentence should probably go. By the way, I moved that factoid from where you originally placed it, to about three paragraphs down from the start of the main article.

As for "Mr. Tambourine Man", my God...you're right! That's a total revelation to me! Thank you so much for pointing that out. I usually have a pretty good ear, I worked as a semi-pro musician for years and spent a lot of time in recording studios, but I confess that that totally passed me by.

Well what do you know! And if folks would isolate the right channel they'd hear that Gram's vocal was not "wiped off" "One Hundred Years"; on the verses he's the only lead vocalist on that channel. Plus if one isolates the left channel on "Christian Life" one will hear he is sole vocalist on the chorus and the dominant one on the bridge. In general with music there seems to be more reading about it then listening to it (I'm not directing that at you, mind you.). Cbben (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the Notorious Track-by-track listing, it does seem slightly unnecessary for general consumption...although, just like you, I love technical stuff like that. I also agree that the Track-by-track in the Sweetheart article should stay as it is. That page gets much more traffic than any other Byrds album - mostly because of the cult of Gram Parsons I'm guessing - so there's probably a bigger demand for that kind of in-depth information. This is also the reason why I’ve made the main article so much bigger and more in-depth than on any other Byrds album page.

PS. You forgot to sign your last post on my talk page again. You'll be in trouble with the nasty Wikibots again if you carry on like that! :-P --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I keep forgetting to sign; I'm getting better though.

See, we may end up agreeing to disagree and that of course is just fine, but here's what I've learned over the years from talking to musicians and my producer friend. They will use trial and error and try a million different things before getting the right sound. So they'll try an electric guitar solo, wipe it off and replace it with a flute, wipe that off and replace it with a banjo, then a mandolin, etc., etc., etc. It seems silly to list all these instruments on the song when only one is ultimately used. I wouldn't be surprised if "California Dreamin'" at some stage of production had a guitar solo that was wiped off in favor of the flute. Stills wiped off Hendrix's guitar and replaced it with steel drums on "Love The One You're With." The use of bass on the song above was an experiment that failed so it was left off. The song was recorded after the main album sessions, which is why the bassist who appears on all other tracks wasn't tried. Saying there is no bass on the song is of note, since the other songs on the album do have it; but my friend's attempt was along the trial and error lines described above.

And here's another thing that is perhaps most to the point: guide vocals. Like my producer friend who in some cases will have the musicians record and have the vocalists later overdub to the resulting tracks. While the musicians are recording, my friend will sing or have studio staff sing the words, knowing full well the real vocalists will come in later and these guide vocals won't be used. Surely he and the studio staff should not be listed in the personnel section as vocalist even though he sang at the sessions, right? Signing off!: Cbben (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all about what happens in studios. Not wanting to name drop here, but I vividly recall getting Rod Argent in to play on one of my songs once, and you would think "Hey, it's Rod Argent...it'll be great". Well, actually it was rubbish and he played a load of overly complicated crap that was totally incongruous with the mood of the song. So, we obviously left his overdub out of the mix.

Two things I would say though, are that firstly, because 1960s bands were only working on 4 or 8 track desks (sometimes 16 track if they were very lucky), there was far less of that sort of "throw everything at the song and see what sticks" mentality than you get in studios today. The instrumental tracks for most of those old sixties songs were performed live in the studio with overdubs being reserved for things like vocals, lead guitar and strings or whatever. In those days you had to be a lot more sure that what you were trying was actually gonna work in the song than you do today.

Anyway, this is all academic really because unless we've got specific sources that say "so-and-so's contribution was discarded and not used" it shouldn't go in an article, even if we can't hear their contribution ourselves. I'm guessing that in 90% of cases, that kind of in-depth studio information just isn't readily available for a band like The Byrds.

I do agree with you though that a guide vocal shouldn't be listed. The difference there is that it's a performance that is clearly never intended to be used, so it's not like a guitar overdub that is just mixed ultra low by the producer or whoever. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear but the Reader's Digest version of what I'm saying in all of these communications is...

If we have a reliable, third-party source that definitively states that a particular musician's contribution wasn't used and we deem that information to be significant enough to mention, then OK, we should not list them as playing on that track. If, however, we have two conflicting sources, one saying his contribution is present, the other saying it's not, then we should probably include his contribution in the article, for the sake of completeness. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I more or less get it and agree, at least enough to proceed with specific suggestions now. Such as... should we now include, along with McGuinn, all five studio players listed in Hjoyt (that is both guitar players) in the Mr. Tambourine Man article for the title track and "I Knew I'd Want You"? Cbben (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks -- I forget sometimes but will keep trying not to.Cbben (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Our ongoing Byrds discussions

Hey Cbben, I was thinking, its probably best to keep our more general discussions about The Byrds articles to our own individual talk pages because at least they can be archived when they get too full up and no-one but us and other users who contact us are gonna read them. Whereas the individual article talk pages are supposed to be on display for all eternity for other editors to view, to help them with editing decisions. So they should really only be full of discussions that are directly relevant to the actual editing of the article, if you catch my drift. They're not a discussion forum. So I'm thinking that even ongoing discussions about the personnel on Notorious for example should probably be done on our talk pages because although it is somewhat relevant to the article, its not the sort of thing that's going to be overly useful to other editors. Hopefully this makes sense. Oh and here's the Wikipedia Manuel of Style (the rules in other words) for editing music related articles...you might find it useful to accquaint yourself with it.--Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks for the style manual. Among other things (such as that I should be putting commas outside the quotation marks around song titles), I see Parsons' is okay so long as used consistently in that style. I also see the reference to Crosby's first album as in the article in the Byrds reunion album is no good; I'll fix it. Cbben (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Parsons' is fine because it's consistent. Likewise, writing the band's name as The Byrds instead of the Byrds is OK for three reasons actually; Firstly it's a trademarked name and as such, both words should be capitalized, secondly the word "the" is a part of the band's name (just like The Beatles) and so needs to be capitalized in the same way that the J in Jefferson Airplane does and lastly, because the formatting of "The Byrds" is used consistently throughout all of the Byrds related articles (or it will be when I've finished work on Untitled, Byrdmaniax, Father Along and Byrds).

Yeah that capitalization of The in The Byrds is also against Strunk & White's, but I see Wikipedia's guidelines require it. So I'll definitely go with it. Cbben (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Exact recording dates of (Untitled) live material

Hi! I wondered if you might be able to do me a favour and look a couple of things up for me in Hjort's Day-By-Day book. I've recently revamped the (Untitled) page and I really wanted to provide accurate (or as accurate as is possible) info on where the seven live songs on the album were recorded. Now, Rogan in Timeless Flight says that all of the songs on (Untitled) were recorded at Queens College on February 28, 1970 but this plainly isn't true. So, as it stands at the moment, I've attributed all of the songs to that performance except for the tracks where there is concrete evidence indicating that they were recorded at the Felt Forum gig on March 1, 1970. I just wondered if Hjort's book says anything about this? The second favour I’d like to ask is that I'm sure, absolutely sure, that I've read somewhere that the recording of "Positively 4th Street" on the album was the first time that The Byrds had ever played the song live in public. I'm certain I've read this somewhere but I can't for the life of me recall where or find a reference for this. Does Hjort's book corroborate this factoid at all? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info re: Untitled. Yeah, that is pretty vague and kinda crap that he only mentions the bonus tracks and not the actual tracks on the album proper, he's just reiterating Rogan's info from the (Untitled)/(Unissued) remaster booklet. What you've suggested doing is kind of what I have done, used a process of elimination...I've gone with what Rogan says (all seven tracks were recorded on February 28 at Queens College) except for where there's a reliable source specifying that a certain track actually dates from the March 1 Felt Forum show. That appears to be the best and most reliable info available at the present time, so that's fine. As for the "4th Street" info, that's annoying because I'm sure that I've read that somewhere but I can't find where. Oh well, I'll keep looking but if I can't find it, I'll remove it from the article.

As for you other points; It's well documented that Dylan co-wrote Ballad of Easy Rider and so there's plenty of references in the Wikipedia article to support the story itself but from what you're saying, we still haven't located a reference that specifies that the story is recounted by McGuinn on the download only live album. That's what we really need...not evidence corroborating the story per se, but actual written proof that McGuinn tells the tale on that recording. Thanks for the Preflyte info, that's very useful and I'm gonna add it to the article right now. As for Menck's 33 1/3 book, it doesn't list anyone on piano for "Tribal Gathering". Is there even piano on it? I can't say I recall ever hearing any piano on the track, without re-listening to it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - Does Hjort say why Ray Pohlman and Earl Palmer were used on both sides of the Elektra single? Was it because Hillman and Clarke hadn't yet joined The Jet Set or was it because Jim Dickson didn't think Hillman & Clarke were good enough players at that point? Also, were Pohlman and Palmer brought in specifically to play on those two songs, with an eye to them being a single, or did they play with The Jet Set regularly? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and yes, of course you're right that there's jazz piano on Tribal Gathering. As soon as I put it on I heard it and of course, I'd heard it a million times before but just kinda forgotten it was on there. Just goes to show how crap Menck’s book is. Changing the subject slightly, one thing I would say about you edits to the various personnel sections of The Byrds albums, is that I'm not sure whether its relevant to mention in-depth personnel for the album's bonus tracks. For one thing, some folks who might read the article may only have the original LP, cassette or CD issues of the album and be confused when you start saying that Hal Blain played on track 15 or something.

I've gotta say that in my opinion, providing such in-depth minfo for the bonus tracks is surplus to requirements. Remember, the article is really only supposed to be about the actual album, the bonus tracks aren't really part of the album, they only exist on one particular release of the album. Sometimes, the bonus tracks on an album weren't even recorded during sessions for that particular album anyway. There are many more versions of these albums in the world that don't include the bonus tracks than those that do. To my mind, in-depth personnel details for the bonus tracks is outside of the scope of the article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I think bonus track personnel credits should be segregated or omitted. The album is the album, not the bonus tracks. If a musician is not on the album itself and only on bonus tracks (such as Corneal on Sweetheart) I think maybe he or she should be eliminated or somehow segregated. I included Corneal only because the LP credits erroneously credit him. I think the track selection for Sweetheart, which omitted any McGuinn electric guitar, may well have been the point -- they wanted to do something a little radical and put out a record with McGuinn on acoustic instruments only. With Gordon and Crosby on Notorious, they are on the actual album itself so I figured may as well include the bonus tracks on which they appear. Blaine is on actual album cuts only (plus "'Flight 713", which his not on the reissue as a bonus track), so his listing seems okay as it speaks to the actual album cuts only. I think I opened up an ugly can of worms with Corneal on Sweetheart, and again I did so only due to the LP credits having listed him. I've modified the Notorious and Sweetheart listings in light of these concerns, and wonder about whether we ought to retain those three parentheticals in the Sweetheart credits referencing bonus material. Cbben (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a tricky one but I guess it's OK. I think the way you have it just now when I looked at the Notorious article, with something like “Hal Blain - drums on tracks 1,2 5 -7 (and 1997 bonus tracks 15-16)” is OK because at least it specifies very clearly that those tracks are only on the 1997 reissue. I don't know, I don't really mind the bonus track info I suppose, I was only kinda thinking out loud really. As long as it's clearly defined that those tracks only appear on one particular release of the album, I think its OK. Songs like "Flight 713" that have never been included on any issue of the album are definitely beyond the scope of the article though, at least as far as in-depth personnel info goes. :-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And from what I have thus far gleaned from Hjort, the good news regarding Notorious is that, unlike Sweetheart, the bonus material contains no additional musicians nor anyone playing instruments other than what they played on the album itself. Cbben (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and like I say, I think the way you've got it at the moment is fine. Nice and clear and not potentially confusing to those who only know Notorious as an 11 track album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I've just spotted an error in your edits on Sweetheart. The version of "All I Have Is Memories" on the 1997 reissue is an instrumental. Kelley's vocals only appear on track 12 of disc 1 of the 2003 Legacy Edition of the album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch -- I've corrected -- thanks! Cbben (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should probably specify that it's track 12 on Disc One because there are two tracks 12s on the 2003 reissue, if you catch my drift. Also, do you think that maybe Jon Corneal should have his own entry in Additional personnel rather than just being tagged on to the end of the Kevin Kelley entry? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I considered both matters and concluded as follows.

As per the conception of the album we just established, Corneal does not play on the album; thus he does not warrant an entry. He is included in large part so readers will not mistakenly assume Kelly performs all drums, even those on all bonus material (see last sentence below). So, because he is included to clarify the limitation of Kelly's participation, it makes sense to include Corneal in a parenthetical within Kelly's listing. On the other hand, I think the "NOTE" explaining the original LP's error in listing Corneal does suffice, and that the parenthetical in Kelly's listing is not essential. But it does, without any real contrivance, give us the chance to be more specific and let readers know on exactly which outtake Corneal plays. Either way, I don't feel that it makes sense to give Corneal his own listing among the musicians on the record, when he is not one of the musicians on the record as it was originally released.

As for adding "Disc One" to Kelly's vocal credit, I think it would be a mistake to do so. The standard so far (which I like) is to list the sixth song of an album with the numeral 1, not 6, if it is the first song on Side two. We then list the bonus tracks as 12, 13, etc. and leave it for the reader to figure out that track 3, side 2 is track number 8 so far as musician credits are concerned, a la the additional personnel credits on the Mr. Tambourine Man article. Likewise, we should leave it to the reader to determine that, when it comes to musician credits, track 2 of disc 2 on a multi-disc re-issue is in fact track 14 (for example). The good news with Sweetheart is that the Legacy track listings actually include the lead vocalist on both track 12's, so it takes no Sherlock Holmes to see that the track 12 with Kelly singing must be that of Disc One not Disc Two. But that convenience aside, it again seems to me that how we handle track numbers vis-a-vis LP sides is exactly how we should handle them vis-a-vis multi-disc reissues.

(Last sentence): On a separate but related note, the Legacy edition's inclusion of Submarine Band material creates a similar problem along these lines, as does the inclusion of Crosby's demos among the Preflyte material. Cbben (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the "NOTE" does suffice for Corneal and have revised accordingly; plus I've tried to make it more clear that Disc One track 12 is a bonus track. Also on reflection, the argument above regarding the LP sides vs. multiple discs hardly holds up too well, and in general we'd have a bigger problem, but Legacy's listing the lead vocalist on these bonus tracks helps matters tremendously and sort of gets off the hook I think. Once I track down my Hillman/Einsersan book I'll be able to clean up those Submarine Bank track credits I added, particularly with respect to Campbell and Everly (if I recall correctly), plus Nuese. Finally, I capitalized the letter "u" in "Sum Up Broke" because in this case "up" is an adverb not a preposition, I believe. Cbben (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Byrdmaniax difficulties?

Hi Ben, having a few problems with the Byrdmaniax article, were we? :-D I don't know what exactly you had done but the article had been deleted, then put back, edited wrongly, unformatted and finally had portions of it deleted again. When I stumbled upon the article it was missing several bits, had no links in it, no infoxbox, no formatting and was generally in a right old state. Anyway, I've repaired the page and put it back to how it was after your last good edit (17:39, 7 October 2009). So you might wanna try whatever it was that you were trying to do again...only this time, try not to completely destroy the article! ;-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh yes I feel horrible, having accidentally deleted the article and then, when trying to resurrect it, finding it not formatted as before. I'll see what I can do to resurrect it. Cbben (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's fine now...I've sorted it. The way the article is right now (as I'm posting this message) is exactly the way it was just after your last good edit, which was the edit you made at 17:39, 7 October 2009. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Many many thanks! Cbben (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo nominated for GA

Hey, did you see that Mudwater has nominated the Sweetheart article for a Good Article designation? It's funny because as I told you the other day, I was thinking of doing the same thing pretty soon. It must mean that the article is looking pretty darn impressive nowadays if a random stranger has nominated it - so well done for your contributions!

Now on to a more serious matter - part of the requirements for a Good Article are that they're stable pages, i.e. not subject to daily editing. Now, I definitely need to expand the introduction a bit, which I'll do over the next day or two but what you need to bear in mind is that if you've got any more edits to do on the Personnel section, then do 'em quick and in as few edits as possible. Basically, we need to try and finish up our work on this article in the next day or two and then leave it be more or less. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Great news -- I think I'll leave it alone. With all the editing I just did to Byrdmaniax I guess it will now be a long time before it sees a nomination. When I find my Hot Burritos book, if it does shed more light on those Submarine Band track players, I'll let you know before touching the article. Keep me posted! Cbben (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several items concerning the Sweetheart article I meant to raise before it reached nomination. I can't get to all of them now, but I'll cover a few:

To me the article makes it appear as though the group made a single trek to Europe when it fact there were two. During the first one the group met the Stones and went to Stonehendge. That first tour only included Dillard. Here's the schedule of events, per Hjort:

*May 7 - Piper Club, Rome

*May 11 - Middle Earth Club, London

*May 12 - Blaises, London

*May 13-14 - visit with Mick & Keith

(to U.S. and then back)

*July 6 - Roundhouse, London (no Doug Dillard)

*July 7 - Royal Albert Hall, London (no Doug Dillard)

*July 9 - Gram quits (I gather Rogan or some other source claims he quit on July 8)

Concerning South Africa, while Richards is quoted as having advised Parsons that "English bands never ever went there," Hjort digs up the following quote from Jagger (albeit from 1966, and one can certainly change one's view in two years' time): "I don't see anything wrong in going to South Africa. Is it better to play to one white audience and one coloured audience or is it better not to play to either of them? Who loses out? Do the coloured people gain anything from not seeing us if they want to?... You can turn around and say, 'We won't play to segregated audiences,' and all that, which is mainly done for publicity." So, who knows whether both of the Stones in fact advised Parsons against going?

In addition, though I think I did manage to amend the article to accommodate this concern, McGuinn and Hillman were told that they would be playing to mixed audiences. They were not going down there to play to segregated audiences. Further, Hjort has the Byrds being taped for a Sam Riddle TV show on November 4, 1967 but not in 1968 (no mention of the show name "Ninth Street West"). Hjort does have Gram on TV with the Byrds May 8, 1968, a clip apparently on the Gram Parsons DVD Fallen Angel. This segment however is made by either an Italian or a Bavarian TV station.

Finally, a citation is needed for the alleged Glaser attack on the Byrds backstage at the Opry. If I find a source to corroborate the attack shall I go ahead and add in the reference?

Thanks! Cbben (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More coming to mind: I recall reading a quote from McGuinn that it was Sneaky Pete not JayDee Maness whom the others pressured him to add as a permanent Byrd. Per Hjort, Sneaky Pete did play with the Byrds at one Parsons-era concert in California (one of their last). Whether JayDee Maness or Sneaky Pete, it appears that the steel players supplemented the Byrds in live performance only at California concerts. Dillard did play with them in New York, at a pair of shows the group played on its way back from Europe in May. Cbben (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lastly????: I presume the 1997 and Legacy reissues call the song "You Got A Reputation"? It just seems wrong to call it by that name when Hardin's own release of the song calls it "Reputation" and when (though admittedly less important) the Byrds' first release of the song (on the 1990 box set) also calls it "Reputation". On the track listing I could see being more or less confined to whatever the CD reissues use for the title. But, as we certainly have sufficient documentation to support the song's correct title as being "Reputation", in the main section of the article shouldn't we call it "Reputation" and parenthetically explain the instances where the longer title is used, rather than the reverse? Cbben (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Phew! What a lot of points...I'll try to address them all as briefly as possible.

• Firstly, the article does make it quite clear that there were two tours of Europe - the first one is mentioned in the "Nashville, Los Angeles and Europe" section and the second in the "Line-up Changes" section.
• The Jagger quote is interesting but ultimately surplus to requirements since it's not that relevant to the actual album itself and I'm already a little concerned about the amount of stuff not directly related to the album in the article. I think the article is fine at the moment, since most of the non-album specific stuff genuinely does give a greater historical context (which is important for a Wikipedia article) but I certainly wouldn't want to add even more trivia not directly concerned with the album. This factoid would probably be more appropriately placed on the main Gram Parsons page.
• The article does state that McGuinn was told the band would be playing to mixed audiences in South Africa, in the sentence "The band found themselves playing to segregated audiences, despite McGuinn having been assured by promoters that the audiences would be fully integrated."
• We've touched on the The Sam Riddle thing before. Rogan is in disagreement with Hjort and places the Sam Riddle appearance in April, 1968 ( I think, off of the top of my head). Whilst Hjort may very well be right, without a third reliable source to corroborate either Hjort or Rogan I think it's safest to leave it as it is. I don't suppose there's any other evidence in Hjort's book to support what his text says, ie. copies of dated TV studio contracts or anything similar?
• As for the Glaser attack on the Byrds backstage at the Opry reference, yes, please do add a reference if you can find a reliable one. I left it their with a “citation needed” tag because I think I've read about Glaser attempting to assault one or more of the band myself somewhere, but I can't find it in any of my usual sources.
• McGuinn was pressured to add JayDee to The Byrds and when he refused, Parsons then began campaigning for Sneaky Pete instead and McGuinn again had to refuse. Both of these events are verified by Fricke and Rogan and as such, are covered in the third & fourth paragraphs of the "Nashville, Los Angeles and Europe" section. You're also right about Doug Dillard accompanying them to Europe and not the pedal steel players - this is outlined in the aforementioned "Nashville, Los Angeles and Europe" section.
• As for the Title of "You Got A Reputation", I've gone with that title because a) that's what it's listed as on the 1997 & 2003 reissues and b) because it’s named "You Got a Reputation" and not "Reputation" on Tim Hardin's own albums (like Tim Hardin 4 or Hang onto a Dream: The Verve Recordings). I know that on the box set and the Sundazed 7" it's titled as "Reputation" - and I've actually noted the alternate title on the Sundazed release in the article - but since in most cases, The Byrds version and Tim Hardin's version is called "You Got a Reputation", I think that's the title we should go with. It's a bit like on the Ballad of Easy Rider article, you'll notice that every time I mention track 4 on the album I call it "Tulsa County Blue" because that's how it was titled on the original LP, cassette, CD & box set. Only the 1997 remaster calls it "Tulsa County". Now, I know that Pam Polland's version is also titled "Tulsa County" but it's the Byrds version that we're talking about here and in 90% of instances it's titled "Tulsa County Blue" on the Byrds’ releases. Same thing goes for "You've Got a Reputation" I feel.

As for the GA nomination, I had a look at the waiting list for GA nominated music articles and it looks like its gonna be about 3 months before Sweetheart gets assessed, so there's no massive rush. Having said that, I'd like to get the article up to scratch as soon as possible and then leave it, so again, I'd say that if you need to make any more edits to the personnel section, then do 'em as soon as you can. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected on You Got A Reputation; I thought Hardin called it by that shorter title on his own albums rather than by the longer title. I also didn't realize Parsons went for Maness, then Sneaky. All else you've addressed quite well and on some points I may have been relying on my memory of an older version of the article. So all seems well. And I just found my copy of the Hot Burritos book so I'll check it regarding the Glaser incident and the personnel on the Submarine Band tracks. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Made some minor revisions based on Hot Burritos and also note two things from the book: First, there evidently was at least one L.A. show with both Sneaky and Doug Dillard (no big news flash there). Second, and certainly of more interest, a quote from JayDee Maness: "They offered me a job in the band, but I made it known I wasn't interested. I thought they were crazy, and it was so loud that I wasn't crazy about playing with them. I was pretty square at the time." So perhaps Gram was making offers without McGuinn's permission (Lloyd Green in Hjort claims Gram asked him to join the group overseas), or perhaps McGuinn was acquiescing after all. Cbben (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also per the book the Byrds appeared on "KHJ-TV's Boss City, miming to "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" with Parsons contriving to play the pedal-steel parts with an acoustic guitar propped on his knees." I'm thinking this may bear some relation to the deleted item about Parsons miming an "Eight Miles High" solo on Dobro. Hjort seems to omit this appearance, but Hot Burritos says it was after their May 24 show, and since the band went out on the road on June 1 the appearance would seem to have to be sometime between May 24 and May 31. Cbben (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, cool info. I've added this third TV appearance to the article and I agree that this is probably what the deleted mention of miming the "Eight Miles High" solo on a Dobro was all about. I haven't specified a date as it's not 100% sure and anyway, all three of those TV appearances are lumped together in the article under the vague time scale of "during this period". In addition, I've changed the sentence saying "although it has been suggested that Maness declined the offer anyway" to something that shows conclusively that he did decline the offer and used the Hot Burritos book as a reference. I'll be expanding the introduction section of the article tomorrow. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - not sure whether that choir vocal on the single version of "Lay Lady Lay" is appropriate for the Dr. Byrds & Mr. Hyde' page. The song wasn't on the album and the version with the choir isn't even included on the 1997 remaster. Seems a bit irrelevant to me. What do you think? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Glad I found the book and it had some helpful info. Regarding "Lay Lady Lay" I think you're right and will delete the credit. With such a precedent in place, next think you know we'll be listing credits for "Artificial Energy" in the Sweetheart article as it is a B-side of a Sweetheart single. Cbben (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ben, just seen your recent edits on Sweetheart (and your message on my talk page). Do we definitely have a reference for Gram's vocals still being present on "The Christian Life"? I know that they are present and all but the reason that the article only listed "You Don't Miss Your Water" and "One Hundred Years from Now" was because I thought that we only had references for those two (the former from Byrdwatcher and the later from Hjort's book). Does Hjort's book specifically state that Gram's vocals are still audible on "The Christian Life"? By the way, after hearing all of the tasty nuggets of information that you’ve plucked from Hjort’s book and after reading a few excerpts from it online, I’ve been hinting that I’d like it for my birthday…so with a bit of luck I might have my own copy in a week or so. :-D --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chrstian Life, no, but regarding One Hundred Years Hjort writes that McGuinn and Hillman overdub "on Parsons' original vocal" (without replacing it altogether). My view is that since the article doesn't directly state that Gram is singing on Christian Life we wouldn't need a reference. But again since I just removed the word "lead" rather than inserting new information I would hope we wouldn't need a reference. In essence, even though it may be what's verifiable and not what's true that matters, can't we limit the verifiable information we include in the interest of truth?Cbben (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good call removing the "lead" vocal bit, that does make sense. If we don't have a source that specifies that Parsons' vocals are present on "The Christian Life" that could be a problem, since the article is suggesting that all three of the songs mentioned as having had their lead vocal replaced still have Parsons vocals present. Which is true, obviously, but not totally verifiable. This is the reason why I initially specified that "One Hundred Years from Now" and "You Don't Miss Your Water" still had Gram's vocals faintly included. I know that the article doesn't mention any songs by name now, at least in that particular sentence, but the implication is that all three songs have Parsons vocal present. Now, I know that that's actually true, so I'm a bit loath to change anything but my concern is that the references only partly support the claim. I am tempted to leave it as it is now though, I must confess. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I just wanted to give you the heads-up that I've removed McGuinn's banjo credit on "Pretty Boy Floyd" from the Sweetheart Track-by-track personnel list. This is because in David Fricke's liner notes for the Legacy Edition of Sweetheart, McGuinn talks about ceding the banjo part to John Hartford, saying "I tried to play a little bit of it but then John said 'you'd better let me do that.' He played it better - much better." In addition, there's only one banjo part present on the album - on the right hand channel. That's Hillman's mandolin playing on the left channel, sometimes being picked and at other times doing choppy, "chink-chink" muted strums on the first beat of every bar (there is a little bit of bleed from the banjo track on the left channel too, but it's identicle to what's being played on the right channel, obviously). In addition, Fricke doesn't state that McGuinn's part was used and McGuinn's comments indicate that his part may not have even been completed satisfactorily. I believe that Hjort also doesn't state that both parts were used and this is certainly in keeping with what I can hear listening to the track. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure I'm 100% on board with removing McGuinn's banjo credit. I thought I heard two banjos but if there seems to be just one then yes it is Hartford's. With respect to Hartford on guitar, Rogan and Hjort faltly disagree, as Hjort cites no guitar work from Hartford on the album. I am inclined to go with Rogan and leave Hartford's guitar credit on "Floyd" (I agree with Hjort that Hartford plays no guitar elsewhere). As you will see should you get the Hjort book, the track-by-track credits are a puzzle based on all the various sources, many of which disagree. Hjort cites "Nowhere" as Parsons's only organ playing on the record, but it's obvious he just missed the organ on "Delivered" as Parsons is the only organist on the record, so far as all sources in sum indicate, Hjort included. Thanks for letting the article reflect Parsons presence on the songs where sources incorrectly cite him as absent. I will try to find a source confirming his singing on "Christian Life," but I most definitely agree that, regardless, we are within reason and rule to leave the article as is in this regard.Cbben (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Byrdwatcher credits Parsons as vocalist on "You Don't Miss Your Water" and "One Hundred Years From Now" (and even cites Hillman's vocal contribution as a harmony part): http://ebni.com/byrds/lpsotr.html As for "Christian Life," it gets it wrong, but when I relocate my Hot Burritos book maybe we'll get a source acknowledging Parsons's presence as vocalist on the song. Either way, as you say it's probably best--all things considered--to leave things as is given your considerations and also because, as per the above, the track-by-track credits are a complex amalgam of all the various sources, which at times conflict and leave us to make the best sense of it all, which is what we have done to the delight--I suspect--of many. I just wish the article hasn't been nominated quite so soon; things continue to come up and we are close but maybe not quite there. Cbben (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. As for Hartford's guitar playing, Rogan doesn't explicitly state that it's on "Pretty Boy Floyd", just that he plays guitar somewhere on the album. From what you’ve said though, it sounds logical that it's on "Pretty Boy Floyd" and as such, I’m happy with it. My one reservation is that PBF was McGuinn's song...that is, he brought it to the sessions, so I'm surprised that he plays nothing on it. That's unusual but not an impossibility. I was reading the other day that Crosby doesn't play on the CSN song "Long Time Gone", it's Dallas Taylor on drums and Stephen Stills playing everything else, yet "Long Time Gone" is Crosby's song. So it does happen. By the way, I've replied to your Farther Along message on my talk page. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Right I saw that in Rogan regarding Hartford. Hjort mentions Hartford as playing on Floyd (fiddle, banjo) and Pilgrim (fiddle). He doesn't mention him by name anywhere else, though he does point out the fiddle on Hickory Wind, listing it among suggested overdubs (and there is no acoustic guitar in that list). So the conclusion has to be that Rogan and Hjort disagree, unless Hartford plays on some other song besides the above three.

Regarding Floyd it could be that the view was to have Hartford on guitar and McGuinn on banjo, but then when it became evident that Hartford could do a better job he took over on banjo and, having already put down a suitable guitar part, left McGuinn instrument-less. Or they could have actually switched and the guitar is McGuinn's. When I listen to the guitar it is not obvious to me, but it doesn't quite sound like McGuinn's playing, which is why given the conflicting information I'm more comfortable leaving Hartford on guitar and McGuinn with no instrument. That said, I wouldn't be too uncomfortable with McGuinn on guitar and Hartford on just fiddle and banjo either.Cbben (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky one but I'm almost positive, given McGuinn's comments in the Legacy Edition booklet, that the banjo part was an overdub. At this stage, it's impossible to say who's playing the acoustic guitar - could be McGuinn, could be Hartford. The available evidence (ie. Rogan) says that Hatford does play acoustic guitar on the album (although that could be an error) and as such, the only logical place would be on PBF, so I'm happy to leave it as it is now. However, that essentially means that when the basic rhythm track for the song was being cut, McGuinn was sitting in the control room twiddling his thumbs, since his vocal would've definitely been an overdub and the banjo part almost certainly was as well. Again, this is unusual given that it was "his" song but it's not altogether unheard of. But given Rogan's insistence that Hartford plays guitar, I'm happy to leave it as it is because that's the most accurate personnel information currently available. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm spreading this thing out again. Might it be that while Hartford's banjo part was an overdub, McGuinn's rejected banjo part was among the basic tracks? So McGuinn would then be playing banjo, and Hartford guitar, for the basic tracks, with McGuinn's banjo then wiped off and Hartford's banjo overdubbed. That scenario would have McGuinn playing along with the song's basic track recording (which I agree would seem the likelihood given it was in essence his song), and would still have the banjo part that was used on the record as an overdub.Cbben (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly a possibility. Unless we get to see the studio documentation and get to have a listen to the original multi-track tapes, we'll probably never know for sure. That's if the multi-tracks still exist! Did you know that an awful lot of the original multi-track tapes for the Mr. Tambourine Man, Turn! Turn! Turn! and Fifth Dimension albums were stolen in the mid-1990s? All that exists now in the Columbia tape vaults, for about half the songs on each LP, are the 3-track reduction mixes with all in-studio effects embedded onto the tape and the master mixdowns, from which LPs, CDs and whatnot are produced. I think that's a shockingly poor show on Columbia's part, that somebody could just waltz away with the mastertapes for the Byrds' first three albums.

A short time after they were knicked, the 9xCD Journals bootleg box set came out, featuring excerpts from the multi-track mastertapes for those first three albums - funny that! Still, at least they are out there and preserved on CD now for future use…the bootleggers in this instance have done a better job of preserving the mastertapes than Columbia have! In fact, when Columbia wanted to issue bonus tracks like "Stranger In A Strange Land" or take #2 of "I’ll Feel A Whole Lot Better" on the Legacy remasters, they had to take them from the Journals bootleg. They couldn't remix them or anything because they no longer had the original session tapes...they just ripped those songs straight from the bootleg CDs (which thankfully have exceptional sound quality) and perhaps EQ'ed them a bit to get the most out of them.

Still, this kind of thing doesn't surprise me too much when you hear that Virgin Records have "misplaced" the master mixdowns for The Sex Pistols' Never Mind The Bollocks album as well. I mean, how could you loose those! That's an iconic, extremely influential album - it's the Sgt. Pepper of Punk Rock for heaven's sake. How could you loose them! You see, that's how Byrds outtakes like "The Flower Bomb Song", "Milestones" or "Circle of Minds" get lost...if they're not actually stolen, then someone just borrows them for something and then they either don't get returned or if they are returned they get filed away in the wrong place.

"Milestones" and "The Flower Bomb Song" have both been missing from the Columbia tape vaults since at least the mid-80s, if not longer. At least those two songs have been bootlegged, although in pretty poor fidelity, but interestingly, the copy of "Milestones" that appears on bootlegs is taken from a TV show (complete with annoying voice over), where it was obviously used as incidental background music. Maybe it just never got returned by the TV show producers. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Think of how many haven't gone missing! There's a lot of music fanatics hovering around these things. Cbben (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure...but to loose any master tapes is a pretty shocking lapse of security on the part of the record company I would say. Just think, if the bootleggers hadn't put out the Journals box set, if they'd kept the master tapes to themselves instead, then we the public would never have heard rare outtakes like "Stranger In A Strange Land" or the alternate take of "I'll Feel A Whole Lot Better", which would've been a shame. As for loosing master mix-downs for classic albums like Never Mind The Bollocks that really is unacceptable in my eyes. John Lydon certainly thought so too, when I read an interview with him a year or two back and he was ranting about Virgin having misplaced those tapes. :-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How much longer before Sweetheart is reviewed? I intend no further changes but it has been subject to a number of them this past week. Cbben (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, currently there are 22 other articles ahead of us on the queue of nominations and judging by how long the articles currently at the head of the queue have been on the nominations list, I'd say it'll be another 2 months yet. However, having said that, reviewers don't have to necessarily review articles in strictly chronological order. There's an article just two places ahead of us for instance that is currently under review, so who knows how long it’ll be really. Could be next week - could be in 3 months! Likewise, the "Mr. Tambourine Man" article had its review started just a day or two ago and that's at #9 in the queue with other articles ahead of it that haven't been reviewed yet. So, it could be any time really.

I wouldn't worry about it too much because even though we're still editing the article sporadically, it's only really us two users that are doing any work on it and it's obvious from the talk page and edit summary that we're working together, so you could argue that it still qualifies as a "stable article". Having said that, it would be nice to get it finished and then leave it alone. Myself I'm pretty much done but I am gonna see about inserting a media sample into the article, so folks can have a brief listen to one of the songs on the album to help illustrate the article. I'm tentatively thinking of creating a short audio file that juxtaposes Parsons' lead vocal on "You Don't Miss Your Water" with McGuinn's, to highlight this particular aspect of the album's creation. I don't know at this stage whether that's even allowed though, it might be that I just have to post a short excerpt from one song (probably "Hickory Wind" or "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere").

One thing I do need from you though is specific page references for the Hot Burritos: The True Story Of The Flying Burrito Brothers and the Hjort book. There's three inline references each for those two books in the article and I need to know exactly which pages of those books support the points they're cited as supporting. Generally, page numbers aren't really necessary on Wikipedia articles and I don't usually bother with them, its enough to just cite the book, but they are necessary in order to achieve GA status. So, have a look at the sentences that those references are used for and then let me know exactly which pages a reader would have to look at in order to verify what's in the article. If the pages are all bunched together then a page range like "p250-265" would be fine but if they are all really spread out throughout the book then I will need the individual page numbers for each point. Just let me know as soon as you can and I'll update the references accordingly. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A general Byrds' related observation

With reference to the GA nominated Sweetheart article in particular, but also for all the other Byrds articles, I wanted to bring up the subject of uncertain personnel details. This issue was mentioned by User:Rlendog as well, in the Sweetheart edit summary. I think that all of the personnel details should be presented as fact, and as such, to have things listed as "not known for sure" undermines the authority of the article and it also makes the info look as if it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Now, I know that this isn't the case but to a casual observer, I think it could look that way.

Let's take "Blue Canadian Rockies" for example - the Track-by-Track listing has the footnote "note: acoustic guitar credit unconfirmed". My feeling is that if Hjort feels certain enough to tentatively attribute the acoustic guitar to McGuinn then that’s fine. It is the most accurate information currently available and as such, it should be presented as a verifiable fact. Yes, it might one day turn out to be wrong but it's the most up-to-date personnel information available for the track at the present time and as such, should stand on its own merits, I feel.

So, what I'm basically suggesting is that all of those italicized footnotes in the "Track-by-track" section should be removed because they call into question the validity of the section (when in fact, the section is extremely valid) and they could also be considered not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. To clarify, all of the actual personnel details should stay the same as they are now though, because it is all verifiable.

Likewise, it is my feeling that any other indications of uncertainty should be removed from the other Byrds album articles: like the "probably" in the Dr Byrds & Mr Hyde personnel section for example. The one exception to this being in the Notorious personnel section, when it says "Gene Clark - possible backing vocal", that's OK because this uncertainty is address in the actual article itself.

In essence, I'm saying that you've produced some really good, accurate, well researched and varifiable info here - don't undermine it with footnotes and caveats, that in the end add nothing to the article anyway. What are you thoughts on this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree and am removing those unconfirmed notes since the best available documented info is enough to go by. But, when I put "probably" it is because Hjort himself says "probably" (as for Glen Hardin for example). That seems akin to the Clark situation, so we could go wither way regarding the "probably" I suppose. I'll dig up the exact wording from Hjort when I have a moment. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, my feeling is take it out. If Hjort feels that it's probable, and in lieu of any other detailed evidence, that's good enough for the article. It's like if we were writing an astronomy article and some scientist had produced a hypothesis that was accepted by the scientific community, we'd put it in because it's an accepted fact as of 2009. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If it's accepted likelihood, and documented as such, let's include the credit without caveat -- I'll amend those accordingly. Cbben (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ben! Just something I wanted to mention to you, I notice that you've been changing section or sub-section header titles on a few articles over the last few days...you should probably refrain from this, changing headers is generally discouraged on Wikipedia because if another article links to that particular section, it will mess up that link. Short of actually tracking down every single item on wikipedia that links to that page and making sure that nothings links specifically to the section you’ve renamed (a very time consuming task as you can imagine) you've no way of knowing. For example, any time I link to the song "Why" by The Byrds, I actually link to the "B-side" section of the "Eight Miles High" article. If you came along and changed that section header from "The B-side" to "Why" for instance, than all of those links I've used elsewhere would stop working. Besides, from a purely aesthetic point of view, I happen to think that Additional personnel sounds better than Additionally musicians...it is a sub-section of the Personnel section after all. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - Red links (links to articles that don't yet exist) are generally fine and shouldn't be removed. As long as the subject of a red link meets Wiki Notability criteria it should stay because eventually someone will certainly create a page for that article - see "Lay Down Your Weary Tune" on Turn! Turn! Turn!. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PPS - regarding the erroneous credit on "John Riley", that's interesting and something that I didn't know…although I was well aware it was an old folk song, dating back hundreds of years, of course. Does Hjort say who arranged it or who it should be attributed to? My guess would be that it should read "traditional, arranged Jim McGuinn" because McGuinn brought the song to the band, having learned it from Pete Seeger's version and McGuinn was very hot on crediting himself as an arranger of traditional folk tunes - so that he got all the songwriting royalties. Just wondered whether Hjort actually specifies that it should've been attributed to McGuinn? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I kind of figured it should be "personnel" once I was in mid-stream, but thought it would be best to confer before changing back, which I'll now do. Per Hjort the incorrect credit on "John Riley" is likewise incorrect on Joan Baez's debut album (pre-dating Fifth Dimension). He does not say who arranged the song. The Wikipedia article on the song says the Byrds version is "influenced" by Baez's version and references Rogan on the assertion, but there is no explicit statement of arrangement credit. The more or less identical arrangement of the song on McGuinn's solo Folk Den release seems (to me anyway) to point to him as arranger. I'll keep searching for a documented source on arrangement. But the song seems to be traditional as Hjort maintains, as the Wikipedia article dates it back to the 17th century. Cbben (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know about red links. There seems to be no uniformity here, as many names etc. are left "black" when there is no linked article. I guess the red encourages more article writing? AS you may feel appropriate please restore Weary Tune and any others I may have un-bracketed. As for the section titles I see what you mean. Aside from the personnel/musician changes which I will revert, I seem to recall changing country rock to country-rock (which shouldn't change linking). Anything else? I'm sorry as I didn't think this through. Obviously not a good idea. Cbben (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the adding of Red links is optional and there are no hard and fast rules as far as I'm aware. I don't add them unless I know that I'm gonna create an article myself for that subject further down the road, but some people do (which is fine) but the potential problem is that if an article is finally created, but given a slightly different title, the links won't work anyway. But they still shouldn't be removed if they meet notability criteria and as long as they’re not erroneous (ie. the actual article their linking to is named something else - in which case they should be corrected).

With regards the bottle smashing, no they're not percussive so my feeling is that Jimmi Seiter should be removed from the Farther Along personnel. Usher's electronic effects on Notorious is debatable because they may've been created using a musical instrument, like the moog for instance, so I'm not sure about that - my gut feeling is it should stay. As for the Firesign Theatre, that should definitely stay for two reasons - firstly, many of the battlefield effects were specifically created by them for the song (not just using pre-existing recordings, although those are undoubtedly used as well) and secondly because their involvement in "Draft Morning" is reasonably well known among Byrds fans and as such, is actually specifically mentioned in the article itself. So I think they should be an exception to the rule. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, though Hjort speaks to the electronic effects -- phasing/flanging accomplished via recording methods employed by Roy Halee (at Usher's instruction). So I think we should go back to the source for Usher's credit for electronic effects and see what they seem to be. My suspicion is they are the same as what Hjort discusses. Cbben (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Usher's sound effects credit is borderline to me. Perhaps we should leave it out, since you've definitely got a point about its worthiness. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

OK, this is gonna be a long one, so bear with me. In answer to your latest message to me…

1) Regarding The Byrds Navigation Template (that's the grey box) I take your point about Lala, Seiter and Guerrin not being official members of the band but on the other hand, they all appeared live as members of The Byrds in front of a public audience. Seiter and Guerrin in particular should remain I think because they also played on The Byrds' studio recordings. Now, you could argue that if that's the case, then Doug Dillard should be on there as well, which doesn't quite seem right to me. I don't know it's a difficult one and there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast Wikipedia rules about template contents.

The thing you have to remember with the Template is that it's purely there for ease of navigation and so I'm slightly loath to remove any names from it. The other thing is that Lala, Seiter and Guerrin have been on that template since May 2007, more than half the template's lifespan and no other editor has removed them thus far. I'll have to think about this for a bit but at the moment, what I'm leaning towards is taking Lala off but keeping Seiter and Guerrin. Seiter because as well as being the band's roadie, he performed live & in studio with the band and even co-wrote songs on their albums (he even had his own silver death mask on the Byrdmaniax cover), and Guerin because although he was not a full member of the band he did appear live with them & was their in-studio drummer of choice during the period that he was in the touring band.

2) I have to say, I strongly disagree with your second point. The chronology is there mainly to facilitate ease of navigation (as well as give a chronological indication of how an artist's records were released, obviously) and as such, should be as comprehensive as possible. What the Wikipedia rules say about album chronologies in the infobox is a bit hit and miss, but essentially boils down to stating that if the band is big enough that every release in their discography will have an entry then studio, compilation & live albums should have their own separate chronology (see The Beatles & Dylan) but it may be more appropriate for less notable acts to have a single chronology. I feel that The Byrds fall firmly in the latter category - they're just not famous enough or notable enough to have three separate chronologies like Dylan or The Beatles do. Besides, a separate compilations and live albums chronology would be ludicrous – there’s just not enough article worthy albums by the band. For a comparable example, look at the Jefferson Airplane album chronology, you’ll see that that it includes compilations and live albums as long as they're official releases because again, Jefferson Airplane aren't really notable enough to warrant three separate chronologies.

The other thing worth noting is that for the most part, the Byrds chronology is just a single chronology, it only splits apart briefly in the early 70s into a UK & US chronology before rejoining again in the mid-70s. Although, some of The Byrds' compilations during the 70s don't really meet Wiki notability criteria anyway, so it's not like you're gonna be able to follow the chronology from 1965 up to the present day. That's OK though, that's just the way it is when you're talking about a band who's popularity waned and aren't that notable (by Wiki standards at least). There are plenty of other artists on Wikipedia whose chronology is incomplete due to notability issues.

3) As for the guitarists on "Mr. Tambourine Man", yeah...I know what you mean. Until I started speaking to you I was always under the impression that Jerry Cole was the only other guitarist on that session...that's certainly accepted wisdom and is supported by Rogan and multiple other sources. I'm sure Jerry plays on the track because if you listen to the raw session tapes of the "Mr. Tambourine Man" single (on the bootleg Journals Vol. 1) you can clearly hear that Jerry Cole is present and Terry Melcher can be heard talking to him over the studio intercom (not that this really counts as verifiable info - but just between me and you, Cole is definitely their playing on the session). Personally, I don't really mind having both names listed...the obsessive music historian in me quite likes it, but if you do decide to remove one of them, then I would nominate Pittman for deletion without any hesitation.

4) No idea why The Byrds didn't use JayDee again post-Sweetheart, maybe they just liked Sneaky Pete better or maybe the band felt snubbed if JayDee did indeed reject an invitation to join the band from Gram. Who knows? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - I just e-mailed you about perhaps talking on the phone tonight. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm on board with the above including the chronology. But regardless of how long he's been there. no point perpetuating a bad thing so, I think Lala should go. He has sort of been mis-identified in the literature as a member brought in at the end of the Byrds' run, which is probably how he got there and was left there. I suspect this impression has been souped up because it has been necessary to do so in order to perpetuate the eye-catching (but untrue) story that at the end Hillman came back to rejoin the group in the full sense of the term. And if Hillman rejoined, in the full sense, than Lala must have joined in the full sense as well (so the thinking would go). I do see your points about leaving Guerrin and Seiter though.

Well your mention of the bootleg sprang something to mind and I just read the "play-by-play" of the Mr. Tambourine Man sessions at the end of Timeless Flight Revisited. At various points among the many takes of the title track, Melcher calls out instructions to "Jim", "Hal", "Larry", "Jerry", and "Bill". So what do you know? They're all there (one of the guitarists no doubt mixed out). Sadly Rogan writes of only one take of "I Knew I'd Want You", with no instructions quoted. I hear absolutely no bass and scarcely a second guitar (if any) on this b-side. But I see little choice but to leave everything as is. Regardless, I think the bootleg should be considered verifiable info. I like your prior point regarding the worst song on Pepper's, but spoken information on a recording should be considered verifiable information to my mind. I mean, say President Bill Clinton had left his memoirs on tape only?

One thing I forgot: Do you think the Monterey CD release should be listed among live albums? It's certainly the most notable given the lineup. And is there ever a DVD section in these entries/should there be? It comes to mind given the Complete Monterey release, though there is also that DVD in the more recent box set. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed Lala from The Byrds Template as per our discussions. As for "Mr. Tambourine Man", yeah, I think it's best to leave them both in. With regards "I Knew I'd Want You", there is most definitely bass and a second acoustic guitar on the regular stereo version of the song. The bass is on the right-hand channel with the drums & electric piano - it's kind of a farty bass sound though - and the rhythm guitar can be heard pretty clearly on the left channel, along with McGuinn's Rickenbacker arpeggios. I take your point about spoken word stuff being verifiable and to be honest, I don't know Wikipedia's policy for this, but since we already have enough written references to support the information it's kind of a non-issue in this case.

As for Monterey (CD & DVD), no, I don't think they should be listed in the discography page. They aren't Byrds releases...they're various artists releases and as such, are beyond the scope of a Wikipedia artist discography. If you're going to include them, then you'd have to include every 1960s various artists compilation that included "Mr. Tambourine Man", which would be blatantly ludicrous. I will be adding a separate EPs section to the discography sometime soon though, since EPs, especially during the sixties, were just as important and popular as singles and albums.

By the way, did you see my e-mail about speaking on the phone?--Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes tonight's unfortunately no good, though most nights (your time) are. I think that's bass drum on "I Knew I'd Want You" but it might be electric bass as you say, and in any case I think it's best to leave that song as is (as with "Mr. Tambourine Man"). Better not to undo something that might be correct I think. Cbben (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure that's a clunky old sixties bass - it's definitely playing musical notes, rather than just a beat - but I agree that nothing should be altered. I've seen your e-mail, we'll have to arrange another night during the week to talk then. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Byrds article

Hi Ben. Listen, I just wanted to give you the heads-up that I've just revamped and expanded the Byrds reunion album page, although I'll probably do a little bit of additional tinkering over the next day or two. Anyway, the reason I wanted to let you know is because I've added a few instruments to the personnel section. The original LP cover provides a pretty complete personnel list (which is reproduced faithfully in Rogan's Timeless Flight) and attributes things like Moog synthesiser to McGuinn and tambourine to Gene Clark. Just to be clear, none of the details on the LP cover contradict what you'd already put down in the personnel section but I have added to it. God knows where the Moog is on that album but since it's actually listed on the 1973 album cover, I think it's best to include it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I didn't realize there were those credits on the record itself. The Moog and the Wikipedia personnel listing aside, do you hear banjo anywhere on that record? Cbben (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have told you off hand where there might be banjo on that album but having sat down with the album this evening, there is definitely banjo on Hillman's "Borrowing Time". It begins after the intro but it's really low in the mix...you have to really listen hard for it. Try isolating the right hand channal of the stereo and listening for it. Now, bear in mind that there's also a mandolin on the right hand chanal but the mandolin is mixed much higher than the banjo...so try to listen underneath the mandolin.

The banjo is present right from when the congas come in at the start of the song but it becomes easier to discern in the first chorus, while Chris is singing "Borrowing time, you know it just ain't right/So hard to believe, all that's passed behind". It is there...it's pretty low in the mix but it's unmistakably banjo frailing. The banjo continues throughout the rest of the song and is probably at its most noticeable in the middle 8, where Chris sings "Why have you worried?/Why do you cry?" I'm sure you'll be able to hear it if you follow my instructions. I’m still at an absolute loss as to where the Moog is though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim/Roger McGuinn

In answer to your question, the way that I've been doing it is taking each album as a whole and calling McGuinn by the name he went under at the time of that album's release. The first release to mention Roger McGuinn was the UK version of the "Lady Friend" single in 1967, which featured the Roger McGuinn/Chris Hillman song "Don't Make Waves" on the B-side. So all other single & album releases prior to that, Mr. Tambourine Man through to The Byrds' Greatest Hits, should feature his name written as Jim McGuinn in both the writing credits and the article prose itself. As for albums that came after the "Lady Friend" albums (including compilations), they should feature his name as Roger McGuinn. This works because if you look at the writing credits on the label of the original vinyl issue of The Best of The Byrds: Greatest Hits, Volume II for instance, it lists Roger McGuinn as the writer/arranger of "He Was a Friend of Mine", despite the fact that he was named Jim at the time of recording. Likewise on the UK History of The Byrds album, the record label credits those early Byrds songs to Roger not Jim. This is also compliant with modern day compilations which universally list him as Roger. So that's how I would propose doing it and in fact, how I have been doing it - any release prior to "Lady Friend" it's Jim and anything post-"Lady Frind" is Roger, regardless of when the track itself was recorded. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo GA evaluation

Hi! Just thought you might like to know that the GA evaluation for Sweetheart of the Rodeo article began yesterday (24th October). It's being carried out by User:SilkTork and the discussion page is here - Talk:Sweetheart of the Rodeo/GA1. Feel free to join in the debate about the article if you want to. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just dropped by to let you know I have done my initial evaluation, and I see you've already been informed. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Column width

Hi! I just sent you an e-mail about this but although it does look better doing the personnel section in two columns, one thing I would say is that I initially set the column width for 47% on the Sweetheart album because this was exactly the same gap as the default setting we had originally in the track-by-track section. I see that you've increased it and so now the right hand columns are wider than the lefthand ones. This is having the effect of giving the page a slightly lop-sided look I think. I just checked it on my laptop, which has a higher screen resolution than my desktop and it looks even worse at higher resolution. I think it was better when both the left and right columns looked roughly equal. If I were you I think I would standardise both columns at 47% (or maybe even slightly less). It's up to you though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate the feedback because while it looks good on my computer we can't have it looking lopsided on others; so I'll revert to 47%. Do the others look lopsided as well? Cbben (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of individual edits

Hi Ben! I just wanted to mention something that I've been meaning to say to you for a while. I notice that you seem to take an inordinately large number of individual edits to do something on Wikipedia articles. This is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia because it clutters up the edit summary and makes it very hard for other editors to compare the changes that you've made to an article. This is especially true if an entire page or more of the edit summary is filled up with edits that you've made in one editing spree (which you have done on occasion). If you look at my contributions in the edit summary, I often make some fairly big changes in a relatively small amount of individual edits.

Remember, not every edit you try needs to be written to the article. There are two ways of reducing the number of individual edits you make: You can either use the "Show preview" button to see how your proposed edits will look when they're published and only click "Save page" when you're sure that you're happy with them or you can make test edits and generally play around with things in the Sandbox. Again, only publishing your changes when you're happy with them. Hopefully you'll find this info useful. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I like to see each change before I do the next one. I just started using the "show preview" button so that should help. How does the sandbox work? Cbben (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo

This user helped promote Sweetheart of the Rodeo to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cbben. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)