User talk:Kohoutek1138/Archive 1

File copyright problem with File:Magdalensky.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Magdalensky.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It would qualify as being non-free/fair-use. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mr. Tambourine Man

On July 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mr. Tambourine Man, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 00:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chimes of Freedom

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chimes of Freedom, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

On August 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article It's All Over Now, Baby Blue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-RCA/BMG Jefferson Airplane releases

We should keep these separate from the main chronology. The main chronology should follow the official RCA/BMG releases. So stuff like the Charly bootlegs and the Monterey festival should go in a separate chronology. JoeD80 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the more I've researched this, these British releases do seem to be authorized by the band, so I guess it should just go in the main chronology. I'll restore it there. JoeD80 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:TheByrds20Essential.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheByrds20Essential.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tambourine Man

I did a bit more clean up on Mr. Tambourine Man and I think it is almost ready for a GA nomination. I plan to look it over one more time over the next few days and then nominate it. I hope you will be willing to participate in the process. One thing in particular I may need your help with is if the reviewer requests specific page references from the Rogan book, since I do not have access to that book. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I nominated it today. There are 40 music articles ahead of it, so it may take a while until someone reviews it. My previous experience with GAN has been about 2-3 weeks before the review, but that has been in natural sciences, with only about 10 articles usually ahead, but probably fewer interested reviewers. Rlendog (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great Rlendog, thanks for the heads-up! Kohoutek1138 12:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Morrison cover It's All Over Now Baby Blue

Hi there. Morrison has covered the song frequently throughout his career in concert, but never recorded it as a solo artist. Probably his most famous solo performance of the song would be at Loreley in 1999 for Rockpalast which got over 120,000 hits on Youtube before it was removed, if I remember correctly. Here's a link for that show: http://ivan.vanomatic.de/shows/1999-07-09_TV%20show.html. Also on the same website you can see all the other times Van has performed the song in concert: http://ivan.vanomatic.de/ and click on 'the songs', 'it's all over now baby blue' and 'performances'. I hope this helps. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to be of service.Kitchen roll (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

THX 1138

You mention that the 1138 of your user name comes from Star Wars references. I am sure you are already aware, but just in case you are not, George Lucas' first film was THX 1138. It's not remotely as good as Star Wars, but you may want to check it out if you haven't already. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Byrds: The vs. the

Hi, again! I thought this might raise some eyebrows, but only because the issue is sometimes misunderstood and is sometimes subjective. The Byrds is the group's formal name. Once it's established in an article or book, common usage with such names is to use the familiar "the" in subsequent references, except, for example, at the beginnings of sentences and in formal titles. See the article's lead paragraph (before your subsequent edits) for an example of the switch from formal to familiar. For other examples, see allmusic's Byrds biography (written by Richard Unterberger) or in print, Michael Gray's Byrds article in The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia and Unterberger's Turn! Turn! Turn!. In the spirit of full disclosure, the usage in WP's The Beatles article runs contrary to what I just said, but my opinion on that is that it reflects the subjective preference of the article's editors, not common usage (that is, as in most print articles and books). By contrast, WP's The Beach Boys article - and allmusic's The Beach Boys bio adhere to common usage, as does allmusic's The Beatles bio. With all due respect and based on the above, I believe my edits should stand and that your most recent edits should be reverted. Allreet (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My POV is that common usage should dictate style. If the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Billboard, NME, Time, Encyclopaedia Britannica and virtually all other major publications follow a certain convention, then so too should we. The reason is that their usage reflects what the vast majority of readers are accustomed to and to do otherwise would appear wrong (odd or stilted). Of course, it's also a chicken and egg kinda thing: On one hand, these publications reflect usage and on the other, they determine it, but that's the nature of the beast.

Regarding the Beatles article, this very debate has been broached at least twice on its talk page, once in 2004 and very extensively in 2008. I haven't read the entire discussion, but apparently it was settled in favor of the article's current state. As for other "The" bands, the issue is still open with most, for example,The Byrds, The Beach Boys, The Band, The Velvet Underground, The Weavers, The Kingston Trio, etc., all of which use "the" in the running text. There are other WP articles, however, that capitalize throughout, for example, The Specials, The English Beat and The Call, though there are fewer of these.

I did look up WP:MUSTARD and WP:MOST which seem to side with your position, although they have their own ambiguities. Then I turned to WP:MOSCAPS and found a long discussion on the issue, to which I've submitted the following:

"Nearly all major publications (e.g., New York Times, Rolling Stone, Time) as well as the leading non-band music sites (allmusic.com, nme.com, billboard.com) and Encyclopedia Britannica, use "the" in articles on "The" bands, except in their titles and intros. Biographers, however, are more inconsistent. For example, Richie Unterberger, who wrote Turn! Turn! Turn! and Eight Miles High, follows the lower case convention with the Byrds, as does Michael Gray in The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, but then Gray uses "The" with The Band. As for WP, most articles on "the" bands follow the lower case convention in subsequent references to their subjects, for example, The Band, The Beach Boys, The Velvet Underground, The Kingston Trio, and The Weavers, while a far lesser number use "The", for example, The Beatles, The Call, The English Beat and The Specials. I would like some feedback on this regarding WP's The Byrds and "Mr. Tambourine Man" articles. My POV on this is that "The" looks wrong when it's used more than once because it doesn't follow common usage, especially with all of the bands I've mentioned, except The Band, and one I haven't, namely The The. Those exceptions, in my opinion, follow what Espoo said above, that in these cases, "The" is acceptable because it's an essential part of the groups' names. Thanks."

I now have a headache (figuratively speaking). Despite that, I must say I enjoy healthy debates and dread contentious ones, and to that I'll add, your responses clearly fall into the first category. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Private Contact

Greetings Paul. It's Cbben (Ben) of Byrds' pages fame. How do I contact you privately (or is this it?)? Thanks.

By the way, now that I have become familiar with discussion pages I feel so silly having made all those revisions (especially to the Younger Than Yesterday article) without consulting and using them. A new world, so thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbben (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Sweetheart article is ready for submission quite yet. The personnel section may warrant some tweaking as I continue to scour sources for confirmation of those few unconfirmed credits. Plus, per Strunk & White's, Parsons' should be Parsons's (uglier but true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbben (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi K1138! There's what I believe is a typo in your profile (boarders). Feel free to delete this comment (if that's copacetic). I would have preferred letting you know by email. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The amazing thing is, you used my favorite saying...that every writer needs an editor. Regarding attention to detail, a bunch of years back I sent letters to two TV stations in the same market looking for a job as a reporter. One of the news directors wrote back, a long, very considerate response. In closing, he mentioned offhandedly that I had sent him the letter intended for his competitor, but didn't mind and just wanted to let me know. Of course, I was chagrined, then thinking about it over the long haul, I realized a bunch of things about what's really important, what's not and how hard we are on ourselves and consequently others. Oh, I still struggle with that, daily, but to quote what Jules (Sam Jackson) said to Pumpkin/Ringo (Tim Roth) near the end of Pulp Fiction, "I'm tryin'. I'm tryin' real hard..." Allreet (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Byrds

I wonder whether Hjort and the 33-1/3 book are in sync regarding Notorious. The real trouble is that Hjort and all of these writers can't always account for players being mixed out, or for their overdub contributions not being used, or being used on an entirely different song than as initially intended. My friend produced an album where he sampled some of the bassist's playing on one song and also used it on an entirely different song. If anyone interviewed the bassist about the other song he would be apt to say no he never played on that song, or even heard it, yet he is right there on the recording. In another case he had someone play the tamboura for no particular reason (not on a song) and then overdubbed it onto an song later. So who knows what these producers are doing, though I guess flying stuff around was harder before the digital age. I suppose my point is we're not necessarily going to get it 100% right, but maybe we should go for as best we can, with a disclaimer. Cbben (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hjort will cite things along the lines of "McParland's later biography of Gary Usher will list the musicians on the session as...." What troubles me is sure, all these players may have been brought in to the session, but some may have sat out the actual recording of a given song, or been mixed out. That's why I think listening needs to the recordings be factored into the mix and should count for something in listing personnel credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbben (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for neglecting to sign above. Is it possible to cite as sources albums as well as books (such as when there is between-song chatter included in bonus tracks, a spoken intro to a song, etc.? Cbben (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think in the case of Sweetheart, because the LP credits are so non-specific, and due to the iconic nature of the album itself, people are really hungry for a track-by-track listing; and, because the LP credits in the case of Jon Corneal are actually misleading, one is in some sense needed. With Notorious I think that hunger and need is not quite as strong, though personally I am all for it because I have a more-the-merrier view on documentation for posterity. I wish we could converse privately because I have a book idea in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbben (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC) yes Cbben (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that info on Crosby. I actually thought it might be Hillman imitating him on "Tribal Gathering." The vocal isn't quite as beautiful as typical Crosby of the era, though it is also more of a talking vocal than Crosby usually does. The harmony on "Change Is Now" seems more undeniably Crosby to me ear. Cbben (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just went through Hjort and compiled an overall list of additional personnel and instances of Byrds members taking on instrumental or vocal roles beyond their usual ones. I'll revise entries accordingly in due course. Cbben (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that the Fifth Dimension article listed "Additional musicians" rather than "Additional personnel" and I started modifying the Byrds articles in this way until I got up to Sweetheart, at which point I decided to stop and seek a consensus on the matter. I like "musicians" because it is more specific, but if we are going to include Fireseign Theatre etc. then we might want to go with "personnel". I didn't want to touch Sweetheart again so as I said I stopped there. Cbben (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled)

Per Hjort it appears only two concerts were recorded: Feb. 28 and March 1. I will keep reviewing, but Hjort seems to offer only the following limited detail as to the release of specific live performances from these concerts:

February 28, 1970 - Colden Center Audiorium, Queens College of City University of New York, Flushing, New York, NY released on There Is A Season: "You All Look Alike", "Nashville West", "Willin'", "Black Mountain Rag"

If the 2007 box set version of "Nashville West" is identical to the one on the album itself, then at least you've solved one mystery.

March 1, 1970 - Felt Forum, Madison Square Garden Center, New York, NY released on (Untitled) reissue: "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere", "Old Blue", "My Back Pages", "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)", "Ballad Of Easy Rider"

I suppose one could deduce by process of elimination that the other live bonus tracks must have been recorded the night before. All in all this information does seem a bit scant, so again I'll keep reviewing.Cbben (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. No mention in Hjort of "4th Street". Perhaps it is Rogan who speaks of the group's first performance of the song. Cbben (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Ballad Of Easy Rider"

In the end it turns out we don't need McGuinn's spoken intro on the live album for the story on the writing credit. Per Hjort Bob Dylan's contribution to the song was supposed to be a secret, but the issue of Rolling Stone hitting stands on May 21, 1969 describes the song as a co-write with McGuinn composing the music and Dylan the lyrics. Hjort further writes that McGuinn will recall to Jud Cost in 2000, "About a month later, when the soundtrack album was out and the credit was Bob Dylan Roger McGuinn, I get a call from Dylan at three o'clock in the morning going, 'What's This? I don't want this credit. Take it off. I don't need the money.' He didn't want it. So I said OK." So we have a written source corroborating that spoken introduction on the live album.Cbben (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to suggest is that we don't really need written reference to McGuinn's live album intro, because that introduction is more or less the same story as what he tells to Jud Cost in the above quote. So I would think we could remove reference to in-concert introductions and just cite the interview clip, as that is what we have documented. Feel free to revert it back, but you'll see I revised the relevant paragraph along these lines. Cbben (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Preflyte

Per Hjort, McGuinn Clark and Crosby are the only ones on "Only Girl I Adore" (obvious, of course). And there are studio musicians on "Don't Be Long" and "Please Let Me Love You" (Ray Pohlman electric bass, Earl Palmer drums). And finally, the group is recorded as a quartet--with Hillman absent--on five recordings, the acoustic demo versions of "Tomorrow Is A Long Ways Away," "You Showed Me", "I Knew I'd Want You", "You Won't Have To Cry", and "Mr. Tambourine Man". Cbben (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No Pohlman and Palmer were not part of The Jet Set but were brought in just for the recording of the single (yes both sides) as Hillman and Clarke had yet to join. This one-off five-piece group is credited as The Beefeaters on the single. Cbben (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Hillman is absent from the above-referenced demos because he had yet to join. Cbben (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we might want to credit the above musicians along with those for the non-Byrds Crosby tracks (are the Crosby backing musicians even documented?). Do you consider the tracks not on the original Preflyte LP tantamount to bonus tracks? There are a few instances, such as Jackson Browne on Byrdmaniax of musicians appearing on bonus tracks only, and I have a record of them from Hjort but have, with the exception of Jackson Browne and the Submarine Band tracks on the Legacy edition of Sweetheart, left them out for now. I think they could be included on some non-cumbersome and clear basis and would like to add them in that manner. What really frees things up is are agreement to include a player even if the documentation cites the player as probable and not definite. And just to clarify, I don't think it's necessary to note where Clarke and Hillman are absent on songs such as "The Only Girl I Adore" and the acoustic demos lacking Hillman, as it is not uncommon for a player or two to sit out the recording of particular tracks on an album. Cbben (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notorious Byrd Brothers

Does the 33-1/3 book by chance credit Beaver on piano on "Tribal Gathering"? Thanks!Cbben (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is very clear jazz piano on the left channel or right channel; I think left. If you isolate there is no missing it. Hjort cites Beaver as the only pianist present for the sessions for this song. Cbben (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the response on my discussion page regarding credits and bonus material. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the electronic effects with which 33-1/3 credits Usher, considering what I read in Hjort, what I hear on the album, and what I feel constitutes an "electronic effect" here's what I think: These effects are 1) not part of performance, but of engineering, and 2) Halee's work, not Usher's.

Admittedly I am under informed. There may well be some revelatory specifics in 33-1/3, in particular ones clarifying that the electronic effects credited are not phasing/flanging. But barring such detail, my feeling is that these electronic effects are the same phasing/flanging effects detailed in Hjort. If they are, then at least per Hjort (and per McGuinn as quoted in Hjort) they are the work of Halee not Usher (though at Usher's request), and do not appear to belong among musician credits. One achieves the effects per Hjort (and per McGuinn as quoted in Hort) not by playing an instrument but by recording with two eight-track machines operating at different speeds. That may well be art, but it is not is not performance of a musical instrument.

And yes, missing that piano credit on "Tribal Gathering" does not reflect well upon the 33-1/3 book; that piano is so prominent on one of the channels. Cbben (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo

I will probably have one more change to personnel based on Hot Burritos, which I will try to do ASAP. I also will have a list of suggestions for the article itself, which I will try to get to you in one fell swoop, other than some immediate ones here:

Per Hillman in Hot Burritos, the reports have been erroneous regarding the Opry setlist. Hillman claims that the group never planned to do "Life In Prison" but rather "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" and "Sing Me Back Home," with Gram swapping "Hickory Wind" not for "Prison" but for "Sing Me Back Home." Hjort quotes a newspaper account of the performance that indicates much the same, though Hot Burritos suggests "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere was performed first while the newspaper account suggests it was played after "Hickory Wind." It also seems possible that three songs were in fact played. I'll review all sources in more depth and advise, perhaps with a summary of all accounts so we can see what scenario is best documented.

Moving on, so far as we know 15 songs (and maybe even 16) were recorded for the album, as evidenced by the four outtakes. We know of eight recorded in Nashville, but Hjort points out that three different reports of the time state that nine numbers were recorded there, leading him to speculate that One Hundred Years may have been first attempted in Nashville before being recorded in L.A., or that one song recorded in Nashville has yet to see the light of day. In any case, it seems definite that at least eight songs were recorded in Nashville (Polly, Reputation, Lazy Days, Nowhere, Delivered, Pilgrim, Floyd, H. Wind) and that seven songs were cut in L.A. (Prison, Rockies, C. Life, 100 Years, Memories, You're Still On My Mind, You Don't Miss Your Water). Cbben (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...the Hillman quote is interesting but both Rogan and Fricke state that it was "Life in Prison" that Gram abandoned in favour of "Hickory Wind". I'm not sure how reliable a witness Hillman is sometimes (then again, how reliable can anyone be after 40+ years). For instance, in Bud Scoppa's Sacred Heart Fallen Angeles book, Hillman says "Gram was hired. He was not a member of The Byrds, ever — he was on salary, that was the only way we could get him to turn up." Now this is absolute nonsense and a gross distortion of the facts, which overlooks the fact that Parsons was definitely considered a bona fide member of the band at the time and was given equal billing with McGuinn, Hillman and Kelley on the Sweetheart of the Rodeo album credits as well as in the press at the time. Yes he was a hired sideman but to sugest that he wasn’t a full member of The Byrds is rubbish.

Not that Hillman's comments about the Oprey show should be entirely discounted. With the conflicting information that we have about this, I think perhaps the actual name of the song that was switched should not be specified. If you're in agreement I'll amend that particular sentence accordingly. As for the Newspaper report, I’m less convinced by this, since Newspaper reports are notoriously inaccurate. As an aside, the accepted story seems to be that "Sing Me Back Home" was the first song played by the band and this is corroborated by Lloyd Green.

In addition, I've also amended the mention of The Roundhouse gig during the first European tour as per Hjort. Rogan specifies that the Roundhouse gig was during the first visit to England but I'm inclined to believe Hjort in this case, since Middle Earth and The Roundhouse were affiliated with each other, with Middle Earth actually moving to the Roundhouse shortly after The Byrds performance. For this reason, it seems unlikely that the band would play both Middle Earth & The Roundhouse within days of each other and seems much more likely that they would play The Roundhouse on their return visit, after their previous successful appearance at Middle Earth. Who knows, the Middle Earth club may have already moved to the Roundhouse by July 1968, so maybe the so-called Roundhouse gig was really just another appearance at the Middle Earth club.

As for the total of 15 tracks being recorded, yes...well spotted. I've got it in the article as being 14 - maths was never my strong point! ;-) I'll amend this now. As for how many songs were recorded in Nashville, both Rogan & Fricke as well as the recording date information in the Legacy Edition booklet maintain that there were only eight. That being the case, I think that this should stay as it is in the article. I'd be interested to know what contemporary sources Hjort is referring to. If it's newspapers/music publications, I think they can be discounted since Rogan’s sessionography is drawn from the actual Columbia studio documentation. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great idea to eliminate the name of the song swapped for "Hickory Wind", and yes I think it is newspaper accounts Hjort cited regarding nine Nashville songs and as such can be discounted. And yes, the Roundhouse gig per Hjort was another Middle Earth engagement where the club "for one night moves across town to the Roundhouse." Cbben (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I just noticed: Hjort has the group recording in Nashville March 9-15 (not March 9-14 as the article says), with "Nothing Was Delivered" cited as having been recorded on March 15, before the group headed over to the Opry. Cbben (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I was going by Rogan's sessionography which lists "Nothing Was Delivered" as having been recorded on March 14, 1968 but Fricke, Byrdwatcher and the track details in the Legacy Edition agree with Hjort and say that it was recorded on March 15th. Since that seems to be the consensus, I'll alter it to the 15th. I'll also amend the number of tracks recorded in L.A. as discussed. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. We're getting there!

By the way, as he explains in Hot Burritos, the reason Hillman so strenuously points out that Gram was salaried rather than a Columbia-contracted Byrd is that Gram's daughter would end up suing for Gram's Byrds royalties when none were due. Cbben (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I made three minor corrections to the article itself and now, barring new information coming to light, feel comfortable leaving it alone as I know it will be coming up for review shortly and should not have recent history of changes. I think the changes I made make the article more accurate while still preserving the gist of what has been referenced. Gram's absence from Christian Life and One Hundred Years has been a little exaggerated by some over the years.Cbben (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Farther Along

Do you happen to have the reissue, and if so does it say who plays piano on the title track, or do you know from some other source? Also are you sure about Seiter's participation as percussionist because Hjort doesn't have him on the album and in fact quotes Parsons as saying only the four Byrds play on the album?

Also I'm thinking we might want to remove sound effects from musician credits on all these albums, because we'd seemingly have to include Derek Taylor for "Rock 'n Roll Star"'s screams, plus the sound effects on "Lear Jet" and "Armstrong Aldrin And Collins". Plus others I'm probably forgetting. And who would rightfully get the credit? The girls who scream or Derek Taylor for recording them? It seems like production work if anything, same with electronic effects. What do you think? Cbben (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it, I agree with you about not listing sound effects. I only put it in because according to Gene Parsons that's Seiter smashing bottles on "B.B. Class Road". Let's remove it. As for Seiter playing percussion, I can't remember where I got that from...I may've just assumed he played percussion because he was present at the recording sessions (Parsons is obviously contradicting himself here - see above mention of sound effects) and because percussion was his usual job. Still, he isn't mentioned by Hjort or the original LP sleeve or in the reissue liner notes, so perhaps he should be removed? As for who specifically plays piano on "Farther Along", the remaster booklet doesn't say but it does credit Piano on the album to Skip Battin, as does the original LP sleeve, so I would assume that it was him...especially given Parsons comments about only the 4 band members appearing on the album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard "B.B. Class Road." My feeling is that if the smashing bottles is percussive in nature Seiter should get a percussion credit for the song. Is it, or is it more strictly a sound effect? Also does this mean we're removing Usher's electronic effects credit on Notorious as well? If Firesign Theatre had actually shot the guns I would say they should get a credit (for gunshots, not for sound effects); but handing in a tape of gunshots is no different from Derek Taylor handing in a tape of screams, so I'll take their credit out. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you certain its steel guitar and not pedal steel that Parsons plays; Hjort has it as pedal steel, though of course he could be wrong. Also how do you feel about adding the musicians for the bonus tracks on a "NOTE" basis? I can see leaving them out, but on the other hand doing so might leave readers under the impression that the four players listed played all of the parts on the bonus material as well. Leaving aside Jackson Browne's piano contributions, this album seem unique in that the bonus material has players that don't appear on the album itself. And speaking of Jackson Browne. why isn't the other Just Like A Woman included among the (Untitled) bonus material? Am I correct that the only bonus track on which he plays is the Farther Along "Just Like A Woman?Cbben (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I only say Steel Guitar because that's what it says on the original album sleeve. As you know Pedal Steel Guitar is a member of the Steel Guitar family but it’s not the same thing as regular Steel Guitar and is quite a bit more complex to play actually. Do you know where Parsons' steel guitar playing is located on Farther Along? Pedal Steel and regular Steel Guitar do sound quite different and if I knew where to look, I'd be able to tell you in a flash which type it is.

As for additional musicians on the bonus tracks, yes I think they should definitely be added in but not as a NOTE, just added on as a regular "Additional personnel" sub-section to the main "Personnel" section, like on other Byrds album entries. But of course, each musician that is only on the bonus tracks will need a parenthesis next to their entry specifying that they only appear on certain bonus tracks. Does Hjort go into great detail about who's on these sessions because according to Fricke & Rogan details are vague. I've even reflected this is the article where I've said - "with the exception of McGuinn, it is not known exactly who plays on these five tracks recorded by The Byrds during 1972. Clarence White is known to play on "Born to Rock and Roll" and John Guerin was the drummer for the July 1972 sessions but additional personnel details for these recording sessions remain elusive. It has also been suggested that The Flying Burrito Brothers' pedal steel guitarist, Sneaky Pete Kleinow, is present on at least some of these tracks."

So, it would be great if we could get a full list of musicians for these tracks (although only the details relating to the 3 bonus tracks on the 2000 remaster are relevant for the Personnel section). If you look at the article (in the Post-release section), you'll see that I've written that there were three separate 1972 sessions that produced at least 5 tracks that we know about, with varying personnel on each of the 3 sessions. Perhaps, if Hjort provides it, you could give me a full break down of who's present at each of the three sessions and also confirm that there wasn't any more than 5 songs recorded under The Byrds name in 1972 (not including the reunion, of course). I'll then update the article itself accordingly. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hjort has Parsons on pedal steel guitar on "Bugler" so by all means take a listen. It sounds like pedal steel to me but I would trust your judgement on this issue more than my own. And yes Hjort does go into the players on the bonus tracks, and does distinguish between the sessions generating those tracks as distinct from the other sessions of the time period. Some of his personnel listing is by his own admission speculative, but much of it is not. I'll put something together.Cbben (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Younger Than Yesterday

Hjort mentions Big Black only by way of a quote wherein Hillman says the percussionist may have played conga on "Have You Seen Her Face" (and to my ear there is no conga on the song). Do we have any other source for Big Black's participation, and does it specify song(s)? Cbben (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Big Black being present on YTY but that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't. If Hjort/Hillman are saying he played on "Have You Seen Her Face", then chances are that he probably did. The Congas may be very low down in the mix. It wouldn't surprise me if he did play on YTY somewhere because The Byrds were really friendly with him at that point. As I'm sure you know, he played with the band at the Monterey Pop Festival and David Crosby introduces Big Black as "sorta one of our favourite people", so it's certainly very feasible that he may've played on YTY.

By the way, while checking this info I've stumbled upon an additional personnel entry that you haven't got listed. Rogan in Timeless Flight Revisited lists Jay Migliori as playing saxophone on "Renaissance Fair" (he doubles up with McGuinn's Rickenbacker on the riff immediately following the line "I think that maybe I'm dreaming"). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone through Timeless Flight Revisited to see if there are any more personnel details that we're missing. I've only found one - according to Rogan, John Hartford also plays guitar on Sweetheart (in addition to banjo & fiddle). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. And I've just found that the "electronic effects" on Notorious are also on "C.T.A.-102" and are courtesy of an electronic oscillator, which see,s to be tantamount to an instrument in terms of its noise-generation modality. The problem is Hjort in quoting McGuinn is a little unclear because McGuinn keeps saying "we" did such-and-such. Using Rogan's notes in tandem I was able to make good sense of things though. I'll add that sax credit and we'll have to figure out where Hartford plays guitar on Sweetheart (probably "Pretty Boy Floyd" since McGuinn tried to do the banjo initially per Hjort, and Hartford would likely have been playing guitar during those takes. McGuinn may not have played any instrument on the track. Cbben (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew about the oscillator on CTA-102 and had duly mentioned it in the main article. I have a favour to ask you. I'm gonna be extensively revamping the Byrds article over the next day or two (it's the last album left that I need to knock into better shape) but there seems to be some vagueness concerning when exactly the album was recorded. Rogan says it was all done during October 1972 (I'm doubtful of this) but doesn't provide specific dates, Byrdwatcher says it was from October - December 1972 but again provides no actual dates and the Wiki entry at the moment says Autumn 1972 (very helpful!). So what I need are specific dates for the recording of that album, if Hjort provides them. To clarify, I don't need to know which songs were recorded on which days, but I would like to do know the exact days that the album was being recorded. I know that this is probably gonna be a lot of work for you but I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out here. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone speak to the acoustic guitar on "The Girl With No Name"? I would suspect it's Hillman, but wonder whether anyone writes about it. Also do you think we should conform across all entries the matter of crediting lead guitar, rhythm guitar, or just guitar? The Mr. Tambourine Man personnel section appears to be the only one to list "rhythm guitar," and the personnel sections of the first three albums appear to be the only ones to list "lead guitar" (though I could see leaving that as is since Clarence White plays on all subsequent albums, meaning there is no longer a single lead guitarist to credit as such). Cbben (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tambourine Man

Hi, Kohoutek1138! I was the culprit in removing the Al Aronowitz-Judy Collins and list of friends material in "Mr. Tambourine Man"'s Composition & Recording section. I reported on the Talk page why I removed these, noting that I thought they were secondary to the song's development. More notable, in my opinion, is the premiere of the song in London, which I added, and the performance at Newport '64 (and the attendant reaction within the folk world to the change in Dylan's musical directions), which I didn't.

Despite that, I'm okay with the reinstatement. I didn't really set out to remove anything. I was reviewing the article and found the three paragraphs I ended up editing poorly written, primarily because of the verbs used. For an example of what I mean, look at the LSD paragraph a little bit later on. Here are the verbs phrases from each sentence, in order: "has evoked speculation," "has always been speculation," "always denied" (awkward, better is "has denied"), "was not introduced," "has been interpreted,", "is praying," "is evidence" (okay), "is praying," "is that the song" (okay), "has been interpreted," and "may also reference" (okay). Except for the three noted as okay and one as awkward, every other verb is passive and several repetitious. I believe that writing in cases like these should be - and can easily be - cleaned up to improve the flow/reading. It becomes more difficult, however, when there's material that doesn't quite fit the narrative (for example, how does Dylan's playing the song for several friends lend anything to what precedes or follows?) Anyway, I hope that explains what I did and why. BTW, check out the WikiProject Bob Dylan if you haven't already. Many hands make light work. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Byrds

I'm eager to help the cause so by all means feel free to ask for any and all such favors (as I certainly have of you). Fortunately this one is not much work at all. Per Hort sessions took place October 16-27, October 30-31, November 4-8, and November 13-15. Hjort further states that "work may well continue beyond November 15." It seems it can't have gone past December 12, however, because Hjort claims on that date Rolling Stone published a Judy Sims interview that took place after sessions had been completed. Cbben (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Ben! That's exactly the info I needed. Pity that Hjort's not 100% certain about any post-November 15th sessions but if that's the last date that they were definitely in the studio, then that's the last date I'll list. What is nice about this info though is that it proves that The Byrds were in the studio working on the album the day I was born (Oct 22, 1972)! I don't suppose, just for my own curiosity, that Hjort states exactly what the band were doing in the studio on October 22, 1972 does he? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not so surprisingly you and I were born within mere months of one another, my friend. On my date of birth McGuinn and Clark were playing the Troubador in "The Roger McGuinn Band - Formerly Of The Byrds."

Unfortunately the reunion album is the one for which no documentation survives regarding what tracks were recorded when (per Hjort anyway). All he does say is no Hillman present Oct. 20-22 due to Manassas concerts.

I think Nov. 15 is a safe date to cite as the close of sessions because Hjort states that the band booked the studio Oct. 15-Nov. 15. They could have of course added days, but one would think that Wally Heider's would be booked up.

On a separate note (and off the topic above), according to Hjort the electronic oscillator was used not only on C.T.A.-102 but also on multiple tracks for Notorious. But it is unclear on Notorious as to whether Halee, Usher, McGuinn, or some combination of the three used it. If Usher receives an electronics effects credit elsewhere (do you happen to know where, and what the precise statement is?), then it seems quite possible that the credit is in relation to the use of the electronic oscillator. On Notorious I'm crediting Usher only for the oscillator at the moment. From McGuinn's quote in Hjort, C.T.A.-102 is more clearly a joint effort with respect to the piano/piano pedal sustain and the oscillator, so I'm giving McGuinn and Usher those credits. Cbben (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

1) I strongly think that Lala and Seiter and even Guerrin should be taken off the personnel in that grey box (especially Lala, though I don't mean to discount the recommendation of removing the others). After Gene Parsons left Dennis Dragon played more shows filling in than did than Lala, who was only a two-show emergency sub. Seiter was a road manager assisting on percussion for a limited period. And Guerrin was never, from what I can tell, announced as an official replacement for Gene Parsons; he just sort of filled the shoes, and the entirety of his tenure came after McGuinn agreed to retire the group so it was just a matter of time and he too, in my view, was just a fill-in. Hort even cites him as an augmentation to the group rather than a part of it during the one recording session in which he was involved.

2) I think the album chronology should consist only of the twelve proper studio albums and not any hits packages (even leaving out Preflyte as it is a demo compilation). In addition to conforming to the chronology formats of other major artists such as Bob Dylan and The Beatles, this alteration would--in the case of the Byrds--allow for a single progression rather than a split U.S./UK chronology, which is a bit more unweidly.

3) I know we've covered this issue before but there are clearly no more than two guitars on "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "I Knew I'd Want You", and no bass on the latter, so listing both Cole and Pittman--even though they are both documented as at the session--seems wrong. The public I think views these lists as personnel on the recording, not just at the session. I admittedly don't have a solution yet, but give me time. Knetchel seems easier: as no one ever seems to have claimed he is on the b-side perhaps we can reasonably take him off.

Just three or three-and-a-half cents -- more to come I'm sure. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Any idea why the band never used JayDee again after his magnificent work on Sweetheart? They always used Sneaky Pete instead. And speaking of pedal steel, Hjort claims Gene Parsons is playing pedal steel on "Bugler" -- does Rogan or some other source say steel guitar instead? After listening to the song, I'm thinking maybe it's both: steel guitar throughout the song, but pedal steel guitar at the 1:22-1:36 and 2:30-2:40 marks in particular. Cbben (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Gene Clark Guitar Credits

Gene Clark is credited as guitarist on Mr. Tambourine Man but not on Greatest Hits, which includes a number of songs from that album. It would seem one or the other is in error. In addition the liner notes to the Turn Turn Turn! reissue actually include a picture of Gene in the studio with an electric guitar (and it appears to be a candid shot, not a posed one). Nevertheless, he is not credited as guitarist in those same liner notes. In any event, for the sake of consistency it would seem that if he is credited as guitarist on Mr. Tambourine Man then he should likewise be credited as guitarist on Greatest Hits -- or that the Mr. Tambourine Man guitar credit should be removed. Cbben (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that Gene should also be listed as a guitar player on Greatest Hits, but only if we can prove that he actually plays on any of the tracks included on that album. I've definitely read that Gene does play some guitar on the Mr. Tambourine Man album and possibly on Turn! Turn! Turn! as well (Rogan’s book maybe?), in fact he even made at least one TV appearance with the group in 1965, that I know of, playing (or miming) electric guitar. However, just because he plays somewhere on the first album (and possibly the 2nd), it doesn't necessarily follow that he plays on Greatest Hits. It may be that he only played guitar on "Don't Doubt Yourself, Babe" for example, which obviously isn't on Greatest Hits. So, yes, Gene should be credited with guitar on Greatest Hits but only if we can confirm that he actually plays on one or more of the songs on that album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay the session transcripts help again, as Terry Melcher suggests Gene's guitar may be out of tune during the recording of "It Won't Be Wrong" and Gene is said to be playing acoustic guitar on "Set You Free This Time". So he's at least on guitar for two of the bonus tracks, and I'll add him as guitarist on the Turn Turn Turn credits.

On a separate note, I see in Rogan's credit listings in the back of the book that he lists only Jerry Cole as rhythm guitarist on the Byrds first session, even though his transcription of the session includes Melcher addressing Bill Pittman as well. I suppose it's either an oversight or Rogan is presuming Pittman was mixed out of both songs. Cbben (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just an oversight on Rogan's part to be honest. Listen, I had a thought about Gene on guitar today - I remembered that Gene can clearly be heard playing acoustic guitar on the raw session tapes of "Set You Free This Time" from Turn! Turn! Turn! . I checked Rogan's take by take analysis of the Journals Vol 1 bootleg boxset and sure enough, it's stated that Gene is playing acoustic guitar. So you can definitely add guitar to Gene on the personnel list of the Turn! Turn! Turn! article (as well as on the Greatest Hits article for the 1999 bonus track). If I were you though, I would simply list him as playing guitar, rather than acoustic guitar on the 2nd album article because who knows, he may also play electric guitar elsewhere on that album. I'll have a search for some concrete info on Gene playing guitar on the Mr. Tambourine Man album and let you know if I turn anything up. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We're reading the transcript at the same time -- see my revision above. I added his guitar credits accordingly. Cbben (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Black

How do we know he's on Younger Than Yesterday? Cbben (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I though that this was something you'd added. Didn't you say that Hjort thought he played congas on "Have You Seen Her Face"? As far as I know (without checking), Rogan makes no mention of Big Black having played on any studio sessions...but that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't.

OK, just done some Googling and indeed Hillman does state in a 2004 interview that he thinks that Big Black played congas on YTY. There also seems to be some suggestion that Big Black played on "So You Want to Be a Rock 'n' Roll Star" as well. In my opinion, I would say that it’s likely to be him playing the distinctive Güiro part on "Rock 'n' Roll Star", since Masekela was present at that session. Given Hillman's comments, I'll add a reference to the Hillman quote to the Personnel sources. It might also be safer to just list Big Black as playing percussion, just in case that is him playing that groovy Güiro on "Rock 'n' Roll Star". I’ll leave that up to you though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No I don't believe I added Big Black to the credit listing. I don't see why I would have, as Hjort doesn't speak to his presence on the album other than Hillman's quote. In recalling the musicians on "Have You Seen Her Face" Hillman says he "thinks" Big Black plays conga, and clearly there is no conga on the song. But of course you're right that Big Black probably plays the guiro on "Rock 'n' Roll Star." If we find confirmation of his doing so we can then credit him more specifically on Younger Than Yesterday and add him to Greatest Hits. I searched around but so far haven't found anything. So for now I guess it's best to leave everything as is. Thanks, and thanks also for correcting me on (Untitled). Hjort got the song wrong and I must have listened to "Welcome Back Home" a dozen times or more searching for Moog. Cbben (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed, let's leave it as is for the time being and I'll try to find something more concrete. What a great bit of Güiro playing that is on "So You Want to Be a Rock 'n' Roll Star" though...totally makes the song for me. While we're on the subject of percussion, I notice that you've been listing people as playing "Conga" in the various personnel sections. I have to say that as a musician, that just sounds wrong to me. No-one ever plays conga, they always play congas, plural. It’s like bongos, which are only really a smaller version of congas, no-one ever plays bongo…they always play bongos. When you buy the instrument, you buy a set of congas (ie. two congas joined together on a stand). I've never heard of anyone playing conga (isn’t the conga some kind of crappy dance?) and I've never, ever seen a conga on its own, always in pairs. It's no biggie really, I know what you mean, but I just wanted to let you know that seeing someone credited as playing "conga" just doesn't seem right to me.

Now listen, regarding (Untitled), I'm going to have to be an anal, Byrdmanaic pedant about this - it's "Well Come Back Home", not "Welcome Back Home"! :-P The latter is just a typo error on the remastered CD sleeve. It was always listed as "Well Come Back Home" on the original album, 8-Track, cassette and CD. In addition, if you listen to the bootleg recording of The Byrds' July 7, 1970 gig at the Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, McGuinn, in his introduction to the song, goes to great pains to explain to the crowd that the song's title is "Well Come Back Home" and not "Welcome Back Home". Although it is true that Skip Battin was toying with both titles during the sessions for (Untitled). Anyway, I'm only joshing you really but seeing the song titled as "Welcome Back Home" is one of my pet Byrds related annoyances. ;-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes "Well Come Back Hone" -- The play on words switched me up there. And 'll revise to "congas". The title of the Wikipedia article guided me to "conga" there. Did I put "conga" anywhere other than in the credits of the reunion album? Cbben (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've said "Conga" on every article you've used the word in. I could be wrong but I think that's the case. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall using conga/congas anywhere other than in the reunion album article. I don't think they are used on any other Byrds album, or at least not mentioned as such. By the way, of course I'm open to corrections along the lines of conga/congas. As you can see I have my own thing with "electric bass." Cbben (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all have our own formatting idiosyncrasies. For instance I see that you've linked to Congas which is actually a redirect page that lakes you on to the conga article (notice when you click on the "congas" link it takes you to the conga page and says "redirected from congas"), whereas I would format it as congas (you’ll have to switch to editing mode to see what I mean here), which takes you straight to the correct page. Not that it really matters but it's just my obsession with accuracy getting the better of me. By the way, I have a question - I see that on the Greatest Hits album you've said "unknown - organ (on "My Back Pages")”. Without listening to it or anything, are you sure that there's organ on "My Back Pages"? I know that there's organ on the proposed but ultimately abandoned alternate single mix that's included as a bonus track on the YTY remaster, but is there any on the actual album/single version? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hjort cites the organ on the album version of "My Back Pages"; the solo on the alternate version is a guitar with an effect to make it sound like an organ. I'm happy to fix the congas link as you describe. I guess to make things consistent we're going to have to eventually settle on a single format for ordering (instrument, vocal) or (vocal, instrument). I strongly prefer the former. For me the Richard Thompson album (guitar, vocal) documents the standard. Cbben (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you if you wanna format congas like I would - yeah, go on, do it!! :D I do agree that instrument, vocal is the best way of formatting. Fair enough about the organ thing, the so-called "organ" on the outtake version does sound more like a guitar to be honest but it also has that swirling, Leslie cabinet sound which is why in my mind, I recalled it as being an organ. I suspect that a Leslie cab is responsible for at least one of the effects on the guitar that you're referring to. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Moog

Always capitalized per the Wikipedia article on the instrument, presumably because it is a brand name like Dobro; I think I changed all references accordingly. Cbben (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that - good catch. It is because it's a trademarked name and also the inventor's last name. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood

Thanks for the compliments. It was the other way round I think. They removed it and I put it back. As long as I'm looking at the same edit you were. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Finding sources is always good but I suspect that the section will get removed occasionally. It's one of those things where someone from a particular area doesn't think another place should try and claim "their" hero. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problems

Hello! Your submission of Byrds (album) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Village People

Hi, Kohoutek1138! I checked the edit history, and it looks like Nezzadar was trying to correct Wallstreethotrod, though it's not clear how the foul-up occurred. Let them both know because maybe one of the two will know how to correct the problem, then just watch to see what happens. If neither takes care of it, then go for speedy deletion and let admins decide what's best. Now back to the Village People...what were you doing there? Only kidding. I've been in some strange corners around here myself. Actually, the truth be told, I have their "Best of...", and while others may scoff, VP was a significant group, certainly historically but IMHO also musically. Allreet (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DYK

Hey, while I have you on the horn...I noticed a couple DYK notices further up on your talk page. I'd like to nominate an entry, and got bogged down trying to figure out their procedure. To let you know, the entry would read something like: "Forty years ago, in October 1969, a self-titled album was released by The Masked Marauders, a group that supposedly included Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger. The album, which sold more than 100,000 copies, turned out to be a hoax concocted by Rolling Stone editor Greil Marcus." I did a fair amount of work on the wiki article and consider this one of the greated hoaxes in rock history. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. That clarifies what I need to know and do for future submissions. Clearly, The Masked Marauders wouldn't qualify under the "expanding" criteria, which I understand as a legitimate rule of thumb in that it filters out the trivial. I thought that given the "anniversary" the album might be a timely subject. Better luck next time. Allreet (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK and prep areas

Hi there. Please do not add your own articles to a preparation area for DYK. When moving to such an area, the user doing so will usually do an additional check for eligibility which you cannot do yourself (since you are naturally biased). You are welcome in helping with DYK but please read a guide like Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK before editing preparation areas or approving hooks. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. :-) Regards SoWhy 12:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kohoutek1138. You have new messages at SoWhy's talk page.
Message added 13:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Katerenka (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Full Circle Song

On October 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Full Circle Song, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikipedia exists due to the contributions of volunteers like you. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry they are only there for about 6-8 hours and I can see from here that you might not have seen it but thousands did. Do keep up the good work Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim McGuinn

When something such as the writing credits for Greatest Hits Volume II include both Jim McGuinn and Roger McGuinn, do you think it is appropriate to have both names--when they first appear--link to the Roger McGuinn article, since some readers will not know they are the same person? Cbben (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now that there is no issue since he is credited as Roger across the board on releases after the name change.Cbben (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Byrdmaniax

Okay Hjort has both Melcher and Knetchel on piano on "My Destiny" and it appears to be an oversight (he mentions them in completely different sections, not within a single personnel listing for the song). I don't own this album except on LP somewhere inaccessible, so could you please check it out and see whether you hear one or two pianos on My Destiny? And if only one, does the style of playing resemble Knetchel's to your ear (Knetchel plays piano on Glory Glory, Tunnel Of Love, Citizen Kane, and I Wanna Grow Up To Be A Politician)? Or does it more resemble Melcher's playing (I Trust)? Thanks! Cbben (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...that's interesting. It does sound a bit like two pianos on "My Destiny" but I don't think it is. The piano in the left-hand channel sounds a bit different to the right-hand channel but they're both playing exactly the same thing...even down to the little grace notes and the nuances of every note. There's also a bit of a double-tracked sound to the piano, like you'd get if there were two pianos playing but again, the piano on each channel is identical except for the EQing - one seems to be quite bassy and the other a bit trebly but I'm convinced that it’s exactly the same performance in each speaker. I think that Melcher's taken a single piano performance and used Automatic double tracking on it, laying one part on each channel. So, he’s made a copy of the part and has sat each one slightly out of phase with each other, EQing one very bassy & the other very trebly and he may have even used some chorus effect on both identical parts in order to thicken up the sound even more. As for who plays this part, my money would be on Knetchel because the Byrdmaniax album sleeve credits say "Knetchel - pianos & organ", where as Melcher is specifically credited with "Piano on I Trust", as if that's the only song he appears on. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then it seems the liner notes are correct; and I've removed the credit to Melcher. Thanks! Cbben (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tambourine Man GAN

The GA review for Mr. Tambourine Man is currently underway. The initial comments are here: Talk:Mr. Tambourine Man/GA1 if you want to participate. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware, but it looks like someone other than you or User:Cbben nominated Sweetheart of the Rodeo at GAN. Not sure how long before it gets to the top of the list though. Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon :-) --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		For a great job on Mr. Tambourine Man - and for your patience with an indecisive reviewer --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo

I've finished my initial sweep to see how the article matches the GA criteria and left some comments. I'm always willing to discuss all aspects of the GA process, though I may not always respond as quickly as would be liked as I am on and off Wikipedia, and when I am on it tends to be for short bursts, and my attention may be grabbed by some other matter. Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. We have some favourite albums in common! SilkTork *^YES! 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bob Dylan WikiProject

Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan? Intentionally or not, you have been one of the biggest contributors lately to Bob Dylan articles, so you may be interested in joining. Rlendog (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:The Byrds - You Don't Miss Your Water.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Byrds - You Don't Miss Your Water.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo

Hi! No, actually, I've worked on bringing some articles up to GA and also worked on some music articles, and saw Sweetheart of the Rodeo was up for a GA review, so I thought that I would make those copyedit tweaks when I had time. Nobody asked me to, and I'm not sure I've met/crossed paths w/the user in question. And yes--I'm afraid my tweaks haven't been major; from a copy-edit perspective it looks pretty good. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There you did it. You inspired me to start slogging through the rest of it. Do the edits look ok to you so far?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. As you can see, I did little w/regard to style, and had very few copyedit changes (and am now done). Mostly wiki specific stuff. Such as they prefer May 2009 over May, 2009. And I inserted a few serial commas and the like, and took out one or two commas.

You raise a good point on the names. I followed the wiki MOS approach used in WP:SURNAME. Though there is a bit of ambiguity here, because while it is clear that in an article on Gram Parsons one should not use his first name again, it is (slightly) less clear that that applies to mentions of him in other articles. I operated under the assumption that it did apply. I don't feel strongly, though (just trying to help improve the article), so I certainly won't revert if you think my changes are incorrect and change them.

One last thing, since you are a major contributor to the article. I have now (present from another editor) a cool thingy that can change date format to May 5, 2009 in the footnotes if you think that would look better/conform better w/the article text. If not, I'll let the 2009-05-05 format remain untouched.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I leave it to you, to do as you see best. As far as the date format issue is concerned, you will probably find your rationale (as well as my contrary one) somewhere among the 110+ expressed here. But again, I defer to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And, btw, if you are ever looking for Music GA candidate articles to share your writing schools with, you can find them here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo

I would take issue with your version of music history. The 1930s and 40s was not a time of popularity for country music. Big band music was the overwhelmingly popular genre of the time, followed by jazz, swing, and others. Country was way down on the list, considered "hick" by most, and had a following in only some geographical areas, notably the American South.

I also think you're wrong about the "harmony singing" phrase. It's obvious from the context that it refers to their singing.

As to "schizophrenic", it seems that you're trying to describe their music as split across two genres. Disjointed does mean split,[1] but I'm not sure it's the best synonym. You might find something more suitable at Roget's Thesaurus, Section 44: Disjunction. Perhaps a rephrasing might be better.

You probably think my edits are a matter of personal preference. They're not. All involve issues of grammar, punctuation, and redundant or extraneous wording. As WP:OWN says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. ... If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them."

Good luck with the article! --Sift&Winnow 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Musical history

Yes, in the 30s and 40s, "The Grand Ole Opry" did play on some northern radio stations, such as Chicago's WLS. But that was also a time of large migration from the South to the North, particularly to the Midwest, because of the availability of industrial and manufacturing jobs there. It's unclear as to whether the radio audience for country music consisted primarily of transplanted Southerners, or also of Northerners. I'm truly skeptical as to whether New Englanders were ever big fans of the genre. Also, while there may have been a few country radio shows, accounting for 2-3 hours of programing per week, if the remainder of broadcast time was devoted to more contemporary genres, that still places country as a minority interest, and I think, makes the assertion of its popularity questionable. Just my take on the matter... --Sift&Winnow 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure

Will be my pleasure.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor point, hopefully more artfully stated than in my edit summary. I believe it would get across what you are trying to say if you said something along the lines of "as a result The Byrds were able to release their recording just two weeks ...". The problem I see with the present language is that "writing the song in 1964" does not ineluctably lead to release "two weeks later". (it could have been two weeks before. or two years later. etc.) Any clearer?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I understand. Here's a stab. How about "Because Dylan had written the song in 1964 and sung it in concert since May of that year, The Byrds had access to it before it was released on Bringing It All Back Home, and as a result The Byrds were able to release their own recording of it just two weeks after Dylan's version."

• Almost there I think. But comment/question (if you know)--how do you think the Byrds really had access to the song? Just his writing it woud not be enough, as they would have to have heard or read it. I assumed it was because he performed it publicly. You replace that with his having tried to record it--but I don't see (in the article at least) that this recording attempt would have been available to The Byrds. Thoughts? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm now down further in the article, and see how the Byrds got the song. How about: "The Byrds had access to a recording of the song by Dylan and Ramblin' Jack Elliot before it was released on Bringing It All Back Home. As a result, The Byrds were able to release their own version just two weeks after Dylan's."--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to work with what I had written and what was up there ... feel free to fine-tune it (it has a bit more than I proposed above, as I tried to retain existing material). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave the footnotes to you, but two things need fixing. One, a common date format; and two, I believe that rather than, for example, 122-144 references of that sort should be 122-44. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The refs actually have a mix ... something the dates have months written out, sometimes they are all numerical. Are you ok w me running my auto changer to spell out all months?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done!--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I expect I'll leave it alone, unless there is some need for me to return to it. Good working w/you.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo edits

Hi SilkTork, I just wanted to give you the heads up about a couple of changes I've made to your recent edits of the second sentence of the lead section. I don't mean to tread on your toes but this sentence was worded very carefully in order that it was accurate. The album is sometimes (erroneously) labeled as the first country-rock album, but that’s not true. That particular honour often goes to Gram Parson's previous album by The International Submarine Band album, Safe at Home, but I personally would argue aginst that as well. It's a somewhat contentious issue and this is why it's important that any claims about Sweetheart being the first of anything are carefully worded. It was the first album to be widely labeled as country-rock by an internationally successful rock act - not the first major country-rock album because The Band's Music from Big Pink could equally lay claim to that title, since it was released a month earlier than Sweetheart. But The Band weren't an internationally famous rock act at the time of that album’s release, they were pretty much unknown to most of the public at that time, although Music from Big Pink' soon changed all that because it was very successful. Hopefully you can kind of see what I'm saying here. The wording has to be precise. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing is good - not toe treading at all! It might be an idea to get some of that information into the article - I don't recall a mention of Big Pink. If there is a reliable source on the development of country-rock which places Sweetheart in context of the other albums, that would be useful. SilkTork *^YES! 09:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tambourine Man time signature

I read User:Philcha's comment "Having heard both clips, I think the difference in time signature is plain, although I last looked at music theory *&^% decades ago. I think it's significant." as supporting including the comment about the change in time signature in the article. Did you read it differently? I would thus favor including it, but if you have readon to think otherwise it is not essential. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A hatnote suggestion for Sweetheart of the Rodeo

Hello, I just would like to suggest the idea of a hatnote on this article to the country music band, Sweethearts. All it takes is that lil s to get the wrong one. The article's nominator Mudwater had alerted me to this fine work, and I have enjoyed reading it very much and would hope a hatnote would prevent any confusion for other readers. Let me know if you think this is a good idea. Best Wishes on the review, Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Response (Sweetheart fo the Rodeo)

I'll be sure to have a look at the GA discussion and add my thoughts. freshacconci talktalk 14:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems re: Sweetheart of the Rodeo GA

Hi SilkTork! I just wanted to let you know that unfortunately, my internet conection has gone down at home - which is where I do most of my Wiki editing from. It should be up and running again by Tuesday or Wednesday next week at the latest, I would've thought. I will be checking in between now and then as often as I can but just be aware that I might not be able to respond to any comments that you or Cbben leave on the GA talk page or edits that you make to the article as quickly as I normally would. As I say, this should only last until early next week (hopefully) but I just wanted to give you the heads up. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am rather occupied in my real life at the moment, so my access to Wikipedia is very limited. I am hoping to take a look at some of the more urgent Wikipedia matters over the wet weekend. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo

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

Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 20:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For Good Works on Music articles, and for displaying the right Wikipedian qualities.
Presented by SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through your edits and have been impressed with your work. I've also been impressed by the way you have conducted yourself - always willing to discuss matters in a polite and friendly manner, yet ready to explain your position if you disagree. I also appreciate that you have kept myself and Philcha informed of your availability. Keep up the good work! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Next project?

Now that "Mr. Tambourine Man" made GA (and in my case Geoffroy's Spider Monkey and in yours Sweetheart of the Rodeo), I was thinking what's next. I think both "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" and "Chimes of Freedom" are in pretty good shape. I did some cleanup work on Baby Blue a few weeks ago, and I would like to nominate that for GA, and then do some cleanup on Chimes to get that in shape for nomination. It may take a while for Baby Blue to get the front of the line, since when I nominated Tambourine Man there were 40 articles ahead of it (and it took about 6 weeks to get reviewed), while there are now 50 articles in the music GAN queue. But Baby Blue should be a simpler article to review than Tambourine Man, so maybe that will help expidite it a bit (Chimes should also be easier to review than Tambourine Man, but probably more complex than Baby Blue). What do you think? Rlendog (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rhymney

I'll have a look over the next five days. I should be able to expand with some information. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gram Parsons

It was so easy to add the image - it's all about how you tag it when you upload it (but, you may already know this). Just writing on your page because I'd seen the request for an image on Gram's page elsewhere (well, images, really, and there needs to be quite a few more...), and I also observed that you've made some recent edits there. Gram rocks! Doc9871 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW - am I alone in seeing a young Tom Cruise with a mullet wig on in this particular picture? Amazing, the weird similarity, especially when he actually looks nothing like Cruise. ;> Verifies the need for more images on this page, but at least it's a good start... Doc9871 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Them's It's All Over Now Baby Blue

I believe the sngle was only released in Holland: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/them/its_all_over_now__baby_blue___im_gonna_dress_in_black/. I don't believe it charted, because it isn't mentioned in any of the Morrison biographies I own. It doesn't mention a release of "It's All Over Now/Dress in Black" in the UK and US Them singles discographies in any of his biographies either, but they don't mention European releases, so it must have been released in Europe. The first appearance was on Them Again on January 21 1966: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/them/them_again/. I have a quote from a couple of biographies that I could add to the article on how Morrison first heard the song and his first live performances as well if you want.

Also here's a link for the cover of the "It's All Over Now/Bad or Good" single, if you find any of the info. on it useful: http://hitparade.ch/showitem.asp?interpret=Them+feat%2E+Van+Morrison&titel=It%27s+All+Over+Now%2C+Baby+Blue&cat=s. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I originally uploaded the image from the link that you referred me to that KR sent you above. i think that all it says is released in October 1966 by Decca. I don't think I see on that link that it was released in Holland. (Maybe I'm missing seeing this?) This link is all the information that I can find on this single release, but the date of October 1966 and the single's cover was reliable enough for me to believe that it was released as a single in 1966, I just don't know where. I'll try to research this as throughly as I can and let you know. The first time it was released was on the album Them Again on January 21, 1966. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Kohoutec, I see where it says Holland below on the link and Germany for the 1973 single. It probably was never (but I will research further) released as a single in the US and UK. Is this pertinent to the single cover as used on the 'Baby Blue' article? Will it have to be removed and the song infobox put in instead? I'm not familiar with the policy on this.... All the best, Agadant (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info., and I'll let you know if I come up with something after researching - probably this weekend. Agadant (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kohoutec: So far, here's what I've found: Here it's listed on Dutch Charts: It's All Over Now Baby Blue but with the 1973 sleeve. This link: Them Again shows "Baby Blue" as one of the songs for the recording session for Them Again. Here's also a mention in J Rogan's book that the arrangement was actually worked out separately before the session for Them Again: "Like everyone else on the pop scene in late 1965, [Tommy] Scott readily acknowledged the importance of Bob Dylan and was eager for Morrison to cover "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue". After several hours work on the Dylan track at Regent Sound, pianist Phil Coulter went home and Scott called a break. 'The number wasn't going down', Scott remembers. 'Van wasn't sure. Then the guys said he didn't fancy it and thought it was cheap because I'd tried to go after the 'Here Comes The Night' tempo.' Scott reconsidered and after picking up a blues riff, a new arrangement emerged, apparently with added piano work from Peter Bardens. Engineer Bill Farley modulated the sound and Morrison provided one of his most expressive vocals." pp. 137-138 Rogan, Van Morrison: No Surrender. It then goes on to say ......"After the preliminaries at Regent Sound, Them were booked into Decca's studios to record their next album. (which was Them Again - my notation) I'll continue looking but info is sparse on the single release for this. Agadant (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added some info. on how Morrison became influenced by Dylan's songwriting and therefore covered "Baby Blue". Should some info. about the release of the single in both 1966 and 1973 be added when we're more clear about where it was released? Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the song was released as a single in Germany or Holland, the single infobox should be fine. Although English Wikipedia tends to cover events related to English-speaking countries more thoroughly than other countries, that is due to the knowledge and interests of English speaking editors, not a policy matter. If there are reliable sources for the single release dates in Holland or Germany, and any chart information, that would be good to add to the section though. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Added the inline citation. Is there any other info. that you would feel should be included for Them's version of the song that I could look up? I read somewhere that Morrison changed some of the lyrics for Them's version or something; I could try and find that. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The lyric change is in Them's version, I'll look into it and also try and find some 3rd party refs. Cheers Kohoutek Kitchen roll (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to give you the links when I find them, because otherwise I'll forget. I've got a link that says the "It's All Over Now/Bad or Good" was released only in Germany in 1973: http://www.discogs.com/Them-Its-All-Over-Now-Baby-Blue-Bad-Or-Good/release/1932884 and I believe this proves it was first released on Them Again: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=33:hjfqxvrsldde. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry I'm a bit unclear on what you want the reference for, are you looking for a ref. to prove the January 21 album release or the October single release? Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got two sources stating that the album was released in April 1966; one is the allmusic review of the album http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:f9fyxq85ldte and the other is the biography Van Morrison: The Mystic's Music by Howard A. DeWitt, p.66, where as well as saying the album was released in April 1966, it also states that the album charted at #138 in the American Billboard charts.Kitchen roll (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Rogan's book Van Morrison: No Surrender, p.608, gives the release date as January 1966in the UK and April 1966 in the US.Kitchen roll (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kohoutek, I ran across this Paste magazine list of 50 Best Bob Dylan Covers of All Time. Perhaps you may find it interesting enough to include in the Them section of the article. I'll let you be the judge of whether it would fit it or not....no worries, if not.... Them's cover was #28 on the list of 50 but #1 as a cover of "IAONBB". Cheers, Agadant (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been able to locate any reference for 1966 Dutch release at this point, besides the RYM one.... will continue looking at every opportunity. Agadant (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing that formatting problem, which I didn't find a way to do. -- Gabi S. (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)