Talk:The Kinks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Who founded the Kinks?

An old Kinks controversy: this page says that the band's founders were Ray & Dave, whereas Pete Quaife's page indicates that he co-founded the Kinks with Dave. Both stories should probably be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.51.62 (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure

The idea of adding a "Live performances" section is not a wise one. The information is better presented as it is, in chronological sequence--the details are very revealing about the band, its public image, and its internal relationships. The history of the band is much more intelligible when this material is integrated into the chronological flow, as it currently is. Not only is the existing structure more informative, it obviously avoids many of the redundancies necessitated by the proposed "Live performances" section. DocKino (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kindakinks.net

I'm about to add a new section to the article, but before I do this I would like to alert others that I'll be using Kindakinks.net as a source. I believe it's reliable for the following reasons:

• Its recently been moved from the location www.kinks.it.rit.edu - it's university backed. It used to redirect there, but the link is currently dead.
• A google search for the website reveals multiple uses in books (at its former address) - see here

-- I.M.S. (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted three edits by Mad Hatter (talk · contribs) to this page; listed below are the reasons:

1. It is important, as DocKino pointed out, to establish that these are studio albums.
2. Why this format? It's not used by other major and featured music articles, like The Beatles, Elvis Presley, or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.
3. Why does this need expansion? If you really think so, I urge you to post here or at the FAC with your specific points.

If you don't agree with my edits, please comment here so we can avoid an edit war. Thank you, - I.M.S. (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was very surprised as well to see an expansion tag suddenly appear without explanation in a section that seems quite comprehensive. DocKino (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another edit reverted. An undiscussed removal of 1/4 of the lead, which conveyed essential information on the band's members. Mad Hatter, again, please post here before such a drastic change is made, so we can at least reach a consensus. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the best for the article. The intro seemed bloated, that's why I did such a change and I also did it again. The article can support only a slight mention of the Davies brothers as it does and much more graphic and essential look on a seperate page. That's all.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't really understand what you mean. The article has been through numerous reviews and you seem to be the only person who wants to make these changes. Please let's not get into an edit war here. Cavie78 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean I am totally wrong for it, rookie! The intro is bloated and self-deprecating. Normal user will get bored and confused to read all the bandmembers in the intro. That's why we need special page and some reference in order to achieve maximum readibility and formulative thinking of the article. Typical...

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, as well, Mad Hatter. Bloat is a common problem in introductions, but I don't think it's a problem here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see what Mad Hatter means up to a point; it's nice and simple without all that detail. But the fact is, per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article. In any band article I've ever seen, that includes identifying the band members. In the current case the line-up changes make that a non-trivial matter, but still I think it's an essential part of the lead. PL290 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read the article again, I'm going to reverse myself - I think Mad Hatter is pretty much correct about the lede. It is too cumbersome; I think it would be fine to mention just the Davies brothers and say that a number of other musicians were part of the band over the years, leaving specific mention of them until later. No offense to Mick Avory et al, but Ray and Dave are the only ones who really, really matter here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for chiming in. I agree with Mad Hatter and David on the point of tightening the lead; I do not, however, think that all mention of the band's lineup should be cut, nor do I think that "The article can support only a slight mention of the Davies brothers as it does"—the article is practically about the Davies brothers. For a group as long-running as The Kinks, there needs to be mention of all major band members in the lead—again, we should still tighten it; perhaps we don't need to mention the keyboard players. Any other opinions? - I.M.S. (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am gonna try something and see how it goes.

The Mad Hatter (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I did something and I think it's better. I would also recommend removing the personel and leaving only the reference to List of members of The Kinks.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I preferred it the way it was personally. I don't know why the reference to the Davies brothers forming the band has been removed, also the sentence about the keyboard players seems out of place and should, in my opinion, at least mention Nicky Hopkins who was a very important figure on the 60s/70s pop scene. While I don't necessarily have a problem with having a separate article for Kinks members the table in this article seems to work very well and present all relevant information in a concise and clear way so why change it? Cavie78 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, Cavie78. With WP:3RR in mind, I will restore the old version; Mad Hatter, I ask that you leave it be until a firm consensus is reached. This article is going through FAC right now, and it is very important that it remains stable and no edit wars occur. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just that the two of you agree doesn't mean that the other users' opinion should be neglecterd. So please don't revert just because you say so. Changes are discussed as they are made.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that DavidWBrooks and PL290 agree that there shoud be changes. Just because you don't agree on something doesn't mean that you just have to go on and revert it. Once again I am disappointed and am saying that changes are discussed while they've been made.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion does not mean consensus, Mad Hatter. I urge you to have a good read of Wikipedia:Consensus. And may I also note that PL290 does not support your views; I quote: "I can see what Mad Hatter means up to a point; it's nice and simple without all that detail. But the fact is, per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article. In any band article I've ever seen, that includes identifying the band members. In the current case the line-up changes make that a non-trivial matter, but still I think it's an essential part of the lead. PL290 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)" - words bolded for emphasis. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I see that you've reverted my edits. I'd hate to report this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if this escalates, Mad Hatter - please stop. If consensus has not been reached, the article should be left in its original state. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, you are little weird. I have nothing else to say. It is self-explanatory. The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for personal attacks here. Let's keep this a civil and open discussion. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you really make a difference between a personal attack and opinion? Because I am not saying you straightface that you are an idiot or swearing at you. I am just expressing my opinion about your weird behaviour. That's all.

The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude is out of line, Mad Hatter. I can't imagine what's gotten into you, but it looks like its time for you to take a breather. DocKino (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeez... No comment. The Mad Hatter (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Consensus has been arrived at on the following text of the lead section:

The Kinks were an English rock band formed in Muswell Hill, North London, by brothers Ray and Dave Davies in 1964. Categorized in the United States as a British Invasion band, The Kinks are recognized as one of the most important and influential rock acts of the era. Their music was influenced by a wide range of genres, including rhythm and blues, British music hall, folk, and country. Ray Davies (lead vocals, rhythm guitar) and Dave Davies (lead guitar, vocals) remained members throughout the group's 32-year run. Original members Pete Quaife (bass guitar, vocals) and Mick Avory (drums and percussion) were replaced by John Dalton in 1969 and Bob Henrit in 1984, respectively. Dalton was in turn replaced by Jim Rodford in 1978. Keyboardist Nicky Hopkins accompanied the band during studio sessions in the mid-1960s. Later, various keyboardists, including John Gosling and Ian Gibbons, were full-time members.

The Kinks first came to prominence in 1964 with their third single, "You Really Got Me", written by Ray Davies. It became an international hit, topping the charts in the United Kingdom and reaching the Top 10 in the United States. Between the mid-1960s and early 1970s, the group released a string of commercially and critically successful singles and LPs, and gained a reputation for songs and concept albums reflecting English culture and lifestyle, fuelled by Ray Davies' observational writing style. Albums such as Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, and Muswell Hillbillies, along with their accompanying singles, are considered among the most influential recordings of the period. The subsequent theatrical concept albums met with less success, but the band experienced a revival during the New Wave era—groups such as The Jam, The Knack, and The Pretenders covered their songs, helping to boost The Kinks' record sales. In the 1990s, Britpop acts such as Blur and Oasis cited the band as a major influence. The Kinks broke up in 1996, a result of the commercial failures of their last few albums and creative tension between the Davies brothers.

The Kinks had five Top 10 singles on the US Billboard chart. Nine of their albums charted in the Top 40. In the UK, the group had seventeen Top 20 singles on the British chart along with five Top 10 albums. Among numerous honours, they received the Ivor Novello Award for "Outstanding Service to British Music". In 1990, their first year of eligibility, the original four members of The Kinks were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Any further attempts to change this wording in the absence of a new consensus being arrived at on this Talk page will be immediately reverted. Now smile, and say "Jeez"...—DocKino (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Making things explicit on the talk page in this way will indeed help, and I welcome this move. It's important for the lead section of any article to be carefully assembled, with the right selection of the topic's salient points. By this time, the article has already passed before the eyes of quite a number of editors, in different reviews and so forth. From this point on, the article will indeed benefit from care by editors to work out these key details with others, so that consensus can continue to evolve—and all the more so while the article is a Featured Article nominee. It goes without saying that during the FA candidacy, consensus concerning wording of the lead may also evolve on the FAC page, and interested parties will of course already be aware of, and involved in, the developing discussion there. The version presented above has nevertheless served a useful purpose by making a point of principle. PL290 (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

it was all shredded but still on there, still intact. I played and I thought it was amazing."[164] The jagged sound of the amplifier was replicated in the studio; the Elpico was plugged into a larger Vox AC30, and the resulting effect became

-Actually, that only works if you also turn both amps up to 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.29.242 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reunion

It says here on Planet Rock's site that the Kinks are recording new material. Now can it be changed to the present tense? FotoPhest (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they are merely tracks from the archives. Ray Davies has been dropping hints of a reunion to the press since 2007, but Dave has continually countered him. Dave recently posted a comment here, which was confirmed by Dave Emlen, saying that "The old tapes are out takes of earlier Kinks albums-RD is thinking of repackaging- and recently he rarely consults me on these issues also – There are NO new recordings of Kinks material." And from recent interviews, such as this one, Ray and Dave don't appear to be the best of friends at the moment. I wouldn't change anything until a major news service announces a reunion, or an album is released. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article mentions that the tracks are from the archives. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Legacy and charts section

I think that it would be best if The Kinks contributions to moddern rock music, were little less self-inclined than before. So that's why I am putting Legacy and charts sections under one banner called Legacy and Celebration. Why? Because I think the article looks better with little less sections and has a little more artistic individuality in representing what the Kinks work has achieved materially and spiritually. I remember when the Beatles were feature article. There were some interesting artistic points from editors that struck me how done was that and how we should do the same on The Kinks. That's why with my edit I think that we all fans of the band should unite and try to show a little more individualistic spirit and capability. In any ways life goes on no matter what. I hope my edit will pass on. This is my justifying for it.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, and find the suggestion surprising in any case but particularly so given the recent discussion of this structure during the FAC. Each of the two sections has a distinct topic:

• Charts, sales certifications, and recognition: this is just stats about their record sales and awards received.
• Legacy: more profound, this is the influence they had on the development of music itself and on other bands. In other words, the mark they made by changing the world in some way.

I've reverted it. PL290 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that MadHatter's edit was in good faith, but I completely agree with all points made above by PL290. The sections should remain separate. Also, requesting that users "[not] agree to discuss it on [the] talk page" is a violation of several guidelines, such as reaching WP:CONSENSUS and encouraging WP:DISCUSSION. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt whatsoever that MadHatter's edit was in good faith, and I should also point out that based on I.M.S.'s comment above, there appears to have been a misunderstanding of his edit summary. I in fact took the comment to be an invitation to the talk page, and I'm sure this is what was actually meant:

• I think it would be good—if you don't agree [with my edit]—to discuss it on talk page.

PL290 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes - I see now how the comment could be interpreted either way. Mad Hatter, if you were indeed implying that we should discuss it, I offer my apologies. Very sorry for the mix-up. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it stirred a discussion. I doubted that it would remain but yet again it is good. Well, my reasons for the edit was that I was reacting from a objective kind of view. I mean, I edited with long term perspective and thought that the charts and releases are in past tense, thus sorta legacy and celebration point of view. These are the Kinks, this is what they've achieved and this is why we are inspired to write about it. That's what I was trying to achieve with my edit if you know what I mean. Excuse me if my English is poor but I was reacting from objective kind of way and entirely in good faith. That's all I can say. Once again sorry if my English is poor.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pete Quaife dead

This is very sad indeed. Rolling Stone reports original Kinks bassist Pete Quaife dead, aged 66. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Years active

The group's start date should be changed from "1964" to "1963". I'm not actually going to make that alteration now because some people (for reasons best known to themselves) are clearly under the mistaken impression that they 'own' this article. But the evidence in the text for 1963 - "the brothers and Quaife re-formed their old group", brought in managers and so on - is *overwhelming*. Harfarhs (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Care to descend from your high horse and tell us your view of the significance of the name-changes, which meant they weren't the Kinks till '64? This is often a grey area in band articles. I don't know if it's been discussed before for this lot. PL290 (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue with many bands, for example the infobox in The Beatles article states that they formed in 1960 but the text itself includes the heading 'Formation and early years (1957–1962)'. I see where you're coming from Harfarhs, but 1964 was the year Mick Avory joined and the band changed their name to The Kinks. Although the Davies brothers and Quaife "reformed their old group" in 1963, I don't personally believe it would be fair to state that this was the year they became The Kinks. For a band like Joy Division then I can see why it's fair to state that they began in 1976 as Warsaw because all that changed was the name but here both the name and members are different. Cavie78 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They assumed the name "The Kinks" and formed the best-known lineup of the band in 1964. I would mark the year that The Kinks became active as 1964. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree (unsurprisingly), for one thing because I don't regard Mick Avory's membership as pivotal. He didn't even play on the first few Kinks records (source: Record Collector article, 1987). Nor do I believe the group's name, especially where a group went through several names before settling with one as here, is particularly relevant for finding a 'start date'. The need is to establish a 'decisive moment' where the people involved wished to become professional musicians, and that moment (I contend) occurred before 1964. Harfarhs (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do people keep deleting this?

Quaife (shortly before his recent passing) stated that he would never play in the Kinks again...there is footage of him saying this that was aired on the Biography Channel in December of 2008...you can find it on Youtube. In 2009 he retired completely from the public eye. I had written this two times before, yet someone keeps deleting it. Is it that it goes in direct contrast with Ray Davies' words or something? Why does it still say that they were hoping to get a reunion of the original band since Quaife said he wouldn't participate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preservedmoose (talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We can't include it without a proper source. YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. Please see our sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can locate this video on a professionally managed website, such as Biography Channel's, or a reference to Quaife's statements in a reliable published source, we'll be happy to include the information.—DocKino (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a video link showing the interview or a published text of it in order to cite a video/TV episode on wikipedia articles - or any type of article for that matter. Just check out Wikipedia's citation guidelines. They provide a template for citing television show episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.57.146 (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I have reverted this good faith edit by Barrympls. I imagine most of it is true, but it is unsourced and doesn't quite belong in the "Charts, sales certifications, and recognition" section. As I said in my edit summary, perhaps it can be added back at a later date, if the information can be properly sourced. I would be glad to discuss it if there is any disagreement. Here is the text:

The Kinks have often survived through more difficulties than other major UK bands of the era. Their initial UK record label, Pye, while decently promoting singles, were unsuccessful at promoting the band's albums, causing many of their classic albums ("Something Else", "Village Green", "Arthur", and "Lola") to not chart in the UK at all. Similarly, US Reprise had little success promoting the band between "Sunny Afternoon" and "Lola", despite the high quality singles and albums the band recorded. When the band signed with RCA, their schedule of recording and releasing albums was punishing, and RCA did little to promote the band in the UK (where after "Supersonic Rocket Ship", none of the subsequent singles or albums charted) or in the US (where none of their singles did very well). The band was recording quality material, but their level of success was limited. Their LP sales success during the RCA years was mainly due to their constant touring.

-- I.M.S. (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an opinionated essay ("punishing"?) and doesn't belong in the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kinks'genre list

Now honestly, its kind of obvious that they are Blues rock, Comedy rock, and Punk Rock as well as Rock and Pop. Why whenever I edit, and you guys change it, only lord knows. Now try and tell me that "Lola" and "Destroyer" and "State Of confusion", "Superman" aren't funny, let alone tell me why "gallon of gas" and "Low budget" aren't funny, I mean my god. Now onto Punk Rock, they have the first Punk rift in a song EVER, in "You really got me" they basically or the godfathers of punk, also bringing that guitar style into "low Budget" and "Destroyer", and "All day and All of the night". Now onto blues rock. "Low Budget", "Gallon of gas" are obviously blues songs, by the way it is sung and played. So please leave the other genres I added in there. Sincerely, user:Colin2k4

The consensus has long been that there's no point in listing every influence we can pick out somewhere in their extensive body of work - it turns into borderline trivia. Similar lists have been discussed and removed before. If you want to convince folks otherwise, go ahead - that's how wikipedia works, after all, by building consensus - but be prepared to work at it! (although I will say that "Low Budget" is not blues, unless you stretch the definition so far that it's pointless.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Colin, I agree with you that The Kinks have recorded several songs in those genres over their career, but these labels don't represent the band as a whole. We try to keep the infobox genre list very brief, and almost every song they did could be described as within the parameters of "rock" or "pop". "Waterloo Sunset" is not blues, comedy, or punk rock, and neither is "Autumn Almanac", "Tired of Waiting", or "Come Dancing". Again, some of their songs are under these categories, but as a whole The Kinks are best described within the parameters of "rock, pop". See the article for The Beatles, a group that recorded in many different genres and styles, for an example. I will be happy to continue discussing if you disagree. (Just as a note, this was written prior to DavidWBrooks' post) - I.M.S. (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not listing every influence out there, I was listing everything they are, doing that would be adding Metal, and grunge too the list, which they had a lot in influencing. And sorry I meant "Blues rock" not just blues, which Low Budget basically is. The way it sounds, the way it is sung, sounds like a Blues-rock song. And I get what your saying, but they were highly punk rock, like I said, they innovated it, and influenced many Hard-rock, grunge, metal, punk bands from that riff in "You Really got me", and incorporating that sound into other songs as well, such as, a song that many consider to be a rock anthem, "All day and All of The night", and "Destroyer". Now the comedy rock thing, is just one thing that they were, like a lot of their songs were just plain funny, like "Lola", "Destyroyer", "state of Confusion". I mean I just changed it to what they showed by what the played, not by what they influenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin2k4 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Would a good compromise be to add "hard rock" to their genres, as they had a heavy sound that was influential on and close to punk and metal without actually being within those genres? (I'm still a fan of leaving it the way it is). - I.M.S. (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin2k4 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you like that idea. DavidWBrooks, what do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I also believe it should be Comedy Rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin2k4 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We can just forget about "Comedy Rock," for the reasons that DWB and I.M.S. have explained very well.

On consideration, I think the inclusion of "hard rock" is a good idea. In general, I'm very much in favor of keeping these lists brief--as in the case of The Clash, where we've kept it as "punk rock" alone. However, in the case of The Kinks, who recorded (a) extensively and influentially in a broad range of styles and (b) who are such a seminal force in the history of hard rock and on its derivative genres, I believe this addition is appropriate. DocKino (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it accomplishes anything - what is hard rock, anyway? a silly title, IMHO - and just opens the door to more hair splitting. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)