User talk:JG66/Talk archive/2020

Aftermath for GA

In case you didn't see here, would you like to co-nominate the article for GA with me? isento (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Isento. Ah, I did wonder whether that was addressed to me ...! It's a very kind offer, and I enjoyed working on the article with you on and off last year. Not sure I'm up for full nom commitment (same reason I've not nominated anything for a couple of years now), but I know you'll do a great job on the article anyway. Perhaps your activity there will pique my interest.

One thing I remember leaving unfinished – in that it's an issue that appears to have informed the writing and recording of the album – is the arrival of Anita Pallenberg in Brian Jones' life and the slow exit of Chrissie Shrimpton from Jagger's. I'd always intended to cover that under Background; think I might have made mention of it in a comment accompanying one of my edits. The point that a couple of biographers make is that Pallenberg gave Jones the confidence to experiment musically and a sense of sophisticated cool, while her presence made Jagger view his relationship with Shrimpton as staid and spent – all of which comes out in the album's music and lyrics, of course. Perhaps that's oversimplifying the situation and/or a case of biographers looking for something significant in retrospect and milking it for all its worth, but I'm sure you get the drift. JG66 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy new year, and thank you for the feedback :) I've expanded a bit about this from the Davis book and nominated the article. I look forward to the review, and potentially featured article nomination in the future. isento (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Isento, no probs, and happy new year from me.

Blimey, that was quick work with the GA nom ... I was thinking of stopping by and perhaps adding something on the Anita–Chrissie situation, perhaps from the Bockris, Norman or Charone bios. I mean, maybe you've nailed it (I haven't looked yet) – in which case, fine. But would it be a problem to you if I did? If so, I completely understand; I know how the nom thing can get a touch stressful ... JG66 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't be a problem. Please do. Anything to improve the article. isento (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't feel a rush or pressure to contribute or make improvements either. There is time. The GAN list for album articles looks very backlogged, and the GA criteria on stability only raises edit warring or content disputes as issues. isento (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice one. Just skimmed through the article – it looks really good. Sections are long and the quotes and commentary come thick and fast, but that's fine; far as I can see, all the commentators' opinions and interpretation add something – it's all good info and combines to give a great picture of the album. Oh yes, I'd almost forgotten about the long, long wait that often ensues between nomination and review. JG66 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Great additions! isento (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I like what you've done at Musical style, pulling those various comments together. From working on Beatles articles for so long (where there is no end of commentary on each song), I guess I'm used to seeing each track given a dedicated paragraph separate from an overview of the LP's styles and lyrical themes. I'm finding, as I'm sure you are too, plenty of commentary on all the Aftermath tracks – in Davis, Guesdon & Margotin, Malvinni, Perone, Norman – but at the same time, there are some obvious filler tracks so we can probably live without the song-by-song rundown for GA. Just thought I'd mention it; not sure if that applies for FA also – you'd know far better than me. (Starting with Beggars Banquet, though, I'd say each and every Stones track is significant and treated as such by commentators, which would make the detailed coverage at, say, Sgt. Pepper appropriate. Anyway, with the Stones' releases up to late '67, there's the issue that there is no "correct" version of an album; the US configurations were not swept away by international standardisation for CD, and American writers still appear to view Aftermath in the configuration first released by London Records.)

My recent change to tense for introducing Jagger's lyric to Out of Time got me thinking: I've probably been introducing inconsistency regarding commentators' views, in that I see them as living on in the present (just as Jagger "sings", because the work lives on; whereas if we're talking about the vocal session for Out of Time, Jagger sang it). To me, the past tense in instances such as "Jagger ... was said by Margotin and Guesdon" and "Ian MacDonald said that like Between the Buttons" jars somewhat because these actions are presented in the same contemporal context as that of the album's creation in the mid 1960s. In some cases – not necessarily at Aftermath right now, but generally speaking – it is possible to read mention of a journalist having said or written something as an event that took place side by side with the description of the album's creation. If a year is inserted ("Writing in 2002, Ian MacDonald said ..."), then no problem, obviously. But I'd be tempted to go with present tense as much as possible ("According to music critic Ian MacDonald ...", "Tom Moon likens it ... but adds ...").

Put another way, when discussing particulars of a song or album, we'd still say the vocalist sings (even though they sang it decades ago, and may be dead now), so in the same way, I think each critic, musicologist and other commentator says/states/writes/considers. I'll leave the decision with you, of course, but FWIW, this is an approach I've followed for years and seen others adhere to also. JG66 (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, to have the commentary or description of songs in the analytical sections as present tense; those writers are being cited as existing literature, whereas a section on reviews is documenting reviews as events of the past. isento (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I like your recent revisions, too. I would suggest, however, that the note about "Under My Thumb" (nb3) be incorporated into the text, somewhere in the third paragraph about Jones' role in shaping the album's tone. It seems like a significant item to the writing and recording. isento (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Great work overall! The sections have more shape and sense to them in light of your additions and rearrangements of certain text. isento (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad you're okay with the present-tense thing. As far as the note about "Thumb" goes, as with anything else I'm adding, feel free to rework, move or ditch entirely – that's understood, you've probably got a better feel for the article as a whole.

One thing I still hope to address is the dynamics between Jones, Jagger, Richards and Oldham, outside of the issue regarding female companions. Part of this appears under Writing & recording already, but I'm thinking it's a point for the Background section. It relates to the idea that Jones was the most adventurous Stone, the one first embraced by the London arts scene and the one who epitomised Swinging London fashion and image, just as he was the one with the New York arty connections and the closest to Dylan and the Beatles. Pallenberg furthers this, because they become Europe's Golden Couple (Salewicz's phrase, I think). Added to this point, the Stones have ended 1965 with enormous commercial success for their singles, attracting Allen Klein's representation, and they've suddenly got money to burn in early '66. So that attitude informs Aftermath. And, to link with the Stones-women point, it also brings out in Jagger a sense of entitlement: he wants a companion commensurate with his elevated social standing, the sister of a famous model was no longer sufficient (he wanted Julie Christie, apparently). Meantime, it bugs him and Oldham no end that Jones so effortlessly commands attention from the press and the Chelsea arts scene.

So, something like that ... Not that I'm volunteering for the task elsewhere, but I can see (because biographers go on about it so much) that this sort of power play is behind every Stones album at least until the late '90s. JG66 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My life is taking a turn for uncertainty now. I may be homeless for some time, on the road, and unlikely to access a computer to continue working on this in the foreseeable future. I am leaving it up to you to continue the nomination or remove the nomination template and leave it for someone else or for the future, if I come back. Hopefully I do, but either way, take care. isento (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy, I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll do my best with the nomination, but if the review comes too soon or is too taxing, I may just have to throw it back. I'm much more concerned on the human front: I sincerely hope things work out for you, and soon. If that means you're back here on Wikipedia, then even better. Best of luck, stay strong. JG66 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back for now. Brilliant work in the mean time. isento (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I'm so pleaded to hear it – sounded a bit scary, your previous message.

Also relieved from the point of view of progress on the article. Still trying to get that Background section to serve its purpose, eg it's tempting to introduce Swinging London there, since several commentators highlight Aftermath as a document of that scene ... JG66 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

George Harrison

Sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be :P Again thanx for the heads up. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FlightTime: Very good of you, big thanks. Have a nice day. JG66 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RE: CS1 discussion

Since you mentioned you found "cite organization" a possibly good template, User:Debresser and I have started a User talk:Debresser#Template a technical discussion on creating it, if this is something with which you might be able to help, or know a coding editor who can. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Final Reply - Agreed Lennon & McCartney - No further talk / Redact

Apologies for posting on your page, I don’t see any other way to respond to messages. I responded on that “Ob-La-Di ...” Talk page but have no clue if that was read. Your message about no further talk is fine. Now that I know the appropriate forum I‘ll post it there. This weekend I’ll read that “Redacting” info and redact all angry, sardonic, “shouty” or negative posts. I already changed some. I simply request that you do the same and redact that comment about “blathering” or any similarly negative posts. Please simply reply that you’ll also redact any negative posts. I won’t contact you after that. Thanks. WB (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. JG66 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies again for replying on your personal Talk page as opposed to the original Talk page, but once again, that doesn’t seem to work for me. This is my final post to you, so just delete it.

All I wanted to say is that I will “Close” that Lennon & McCartney credit discussion on the “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” Talk page, and introduce the topic on the appropriate page which you kindly pointed me to.

I read your comments as well as one by SundayClose, but I never get a “Reply” text-box whereby I can respond.

I responded via editing the raw HTML and made each of your usernames hyperlinks, but even that didn’t seem to work.

I read that “Redacting” info and my understanding is that once a discussion has been replied to, it can’t be “Redacted”, so the next best thing is simply to “Close” it. It doesn’t belong on that page anyway, as you’ve pointed out.

And FYI, my “shouty” and angry comments every time my edit was reverted were the result of me not seeing the reason it was repeatedly reverted - I didn’t see those posts until later, and the first thing I saw was “blathering”.

I’m aware of Wiki’s “3rd party source” policy but I became very frustrated because if the copyright isn’t a legitimate 3rd party source, then I don’t know what is. But I won’t get into that here. I’m just letting you know that no offense was intended.

I did respond on that Talk page, saying essentially what I said here, with a bit more detail, which you can read or not, up to you.

Peace WB (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Help Request

Dear JG66 I have just reached out to User:Martinevans123 because I received help from both of you in the past. This time I came to the support of two other Editors and have now become embroiled!! If you have time and can be bothered I really would like your help on an ongoing Dispute resolution Noticeboard. I realise this album may not be on your playlist but I am hoping for common sense. I noticed that user: 197.87.101.28 had added nonsense and had also had it removed by an Editor, User: isaacsorry a '30 million copies' claim. It was removed once again, this time by User: 88marcus. It was put back in again!! And then I stepped in and supported User:88Marcus by removing it myself and giving reason on the talk page for this nonsense. We really need some senior level intrusion here, and if you can read the dialogue you will see what I mean. The citations are simply statements of "30 million sales" there is nothing to back it up and certainly nothing on any 'best selling album of all-time lists'. Your experience and help would be much appreciated as the previous Arbitrator has now stepped out. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69 kind regards to youMuso805 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I've just posted something at DRN. JG66 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if Martin got your message. Pinging here. JG66 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I got a ping thanks, but had not read the detail. Will try and take a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

p.s. have had a quick look. I am far from a expert on record sales. I'd be interested to see what a real popular music expert like User:Ojorojo would have to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Procedural note. The DRN thread discussed here was archived to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_187#In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida_(album). --kingboyk (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks to your brilliant work, Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) is now a featured article. It's been great working with you recently. Hope all's well. isento (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

isento, big thanks, and ditto from me. Great job in pulling the article together (perhaps your example will inspire me to pull my finger out and get back on the nomination trail sometime soon ...).

I did get the feeling, from occasionally seeing your edits to the lead, particularly, that we might be "bigging up" the album unduly. Aftermath was a major leap for the Stones, and it was one of the incremental steps towards rock/pop's cultural validation, but it wasn't up at the level of, say, Pet Sounds, Revolver and Blonde on Blonde in most critics' and music historians' view, partly because the Stones went on to make Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, etc. Again, it's only a feeling on my part, and I've yet to re-read the article in any depth anyway. I guess it's about the contradictory picture one gets from music journalists writing a review or a feature on an album decades later vs how music historians, who (one hopes) aren't out to laud any work in particular, locate that album in a more sobre analysis. Just thought I'd flag it with you now – could be I'm worrying about nothing. Certainly don't want to take anything away from the result nor your gesture here! JG66 (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Impartial observer here who dropped by on Beatles business. I personally think the first great Stones album was Satanic Majesties, but that's an insane-minority view :) It's probably not a minority view that Beggars Banquet was when they fully came of age and started making truly great albums (and then there's Sticky Fingers, Exile, Some Girls, etc) Anyway, my rating is besides the point, but let's talk about the article - and congrats on the FA:

I haven't read the article in full, but the lead statement "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums" makes me slightly uneasy. It all depends how you define "most acclaimed". The article says the album placed 109 in the Rolling Stone list and 98 at Pitchfork, and is ranked 150 according to the review aggregater Acclaimed Music. To me, "among the most acclaimed records in history" would mean it was consistently ranked in the top 10 or at my most generous, the top 50. 150 really doesn't cut it. I'd expect an album which is "among the most acclaimed" to be discussed in the same breath as Revolver or Blood on the Tracks, and frankly it isn't; the article itself claims the album is merely "the most important of the Stones' early, formative music". Personally, I would tone down the claims in the lead a little. --kingboyk (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Ping, in case you're not watching this page. --kingboyk (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

kingboyk: There's nothing I like more than original thinking in life, as opposed to simply following the crowd, and especially here on my talk page. But wow, Satanic Majesties ...?! (Mind you – whisper it – I'd put Beatles for Sale way above Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road, so what do I know?)

I agree one would expect to see a consistent ranking within critics' top 10s (I'd stretch to top 20 or 30) to justify Aftermath being "among the most acclaimed records in history". And that number 98 at Pitchfork is only a ranking of the best albums from the 1960s, btw. When helping to expand the section that became Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#Accolades, I noticed that Aftermath did not appear at all in the original (1978) edition of Critic's Choice: Top 200 Albums. I appreciate that every "best" list carries a major surprise or two, often on the whim of the publication's editor and to make a statement. But to me, that was a notable (and puzzling) omission, because the book's contributors were top-flight critics from the UK, US and Germany. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your opinions, but the sources cited and summarized in the article do support those summaries. The claim that it is the Stones' most important/formative album is also directly supported in Legacy and reappraisal. It actually is discussed in the same breath as such albums in that section -- even one of the few dissenting views cited (Rob Young from Uncut) acknowledges the existence of such a reputation. As far as Acclaimed Music's tabulation, through 2013, it had been listed as the 125th most acclaimed album. And now, it has moved down 25 spots to 150th, after seven years and, very likely, many hundreds of thousands albums, not to mention the trillions that had existed before -- which may explain why those greatest albums lists usually have hundreds listed, sometimes a thousand. Give this context -- the infinite amount of albums in record music's history, and the select hundreds that have consistently appeared on professionally curated lists, and the supporting text from expert sources -- I believe the claim stands. isento (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As explained in their essay, Pitchfork demerits the album for content it disregards as "misogynistic". Which is not surprising, given their target audience and today's political climate. It is actually impressive the album even made their list's top 100. isento (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

However, if the article is missing music-historian commentary on Aftermath's standing with those contemporaneous works, that as you say deems it not on-par, I would be glad to see it incorporated in the article. Then of course, it would diminish the summarizing claim. isento (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it does very much depend on how one defines "most acclaimed" and essentially that means at what 'number' being most acclaimed stops at. For me, it's in the range 10-50. I take your point that there have hundreds of thousands of albums, and can see how you would conclude that an album which (for the sake of argument) is the 150th best according to reviewers is amongst the most acclaimed. Also, I do now see that you have some quotations and citations in "Legacy and reappraisal" which attribute importance, so that's cool.

I'll leave it there for now as I'm getting a bit too tired to form a coherent argument :) and I was merely agreeing with JG66's concern that the importance might be slightly overstated; you've been through FA review and that's good enough for me.

BTW, Q Magazine writers ranked the 100 Best British albums in 2000 (reposted by the Guardian), and Aftermath wasn't listed. It wasn't in NME's 1993 All-Time top 100 either. Of course, taken individually these lists mean very little. --kingboyk (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I still think its standing is being inflated. Isento, I take your point that further music historian commentary would be welcome, which would then affect the picture given in summary in the lead, but the point I'm making refers to the album's omission from such analysis (which, by definition, is impossible to bring to the article). When working on the section(s) we're talking about, I felt sure a book like Carys Wyn Jones' The Rock Canon would be useful; it summarises critical opinion for many of the genre's major works rather than simply reflecting the author's opinion (as books by, say, James Perone do). In fact, I found nothing there, and from searching the preview, it seems Aftermath doesn't even merit a single mention. To my way of thinking, when it comes to the lead we should be considering these omissions, from books about "classic" rock albums and important critics' lists, as much as the statements that do locate Aftermath among rarefied company.

The lead's final sentence currently states that it's "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums". I suggest that rather than allowing a subjective viewpoint (any of ours) to dictate what counts as being "among the most acclaimed", we substitute with the number 150 all-time ranking at Acclaimed Music, and also change "consistently" to "frequently", because no source supports the claim that it consistently appears on these lists. In fact – and this was what got me looking in books like Wyn Jones' Rock Canon – the only source we have to support that Aftermath appears on so many lists is the album's page at Acclaimed. I think there'd be no shortage of sources (outside album reviews and features on the artists) that say Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper, the White Album, Beggars Banquet, Exile, Astral Weeks, etc. regularly appear towards the top of critics' lists of the best albums of all time – indeed, I know this for a fact, from reading books such as The Rock Canon that are built around this point. But I've not read any such statement about Aftermath from the same type of source, which is why it strikes me as out of place in the lead. JG66 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

isento: Big thanks for your recent change to the article lead. I think the wording's far more accurate, without taking anything away from the album's impact and significance. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Much better; as per JG66 the lead still make it clear that the album is important and acclaimed, whilst no longer containing any ammunition for pedants like me :). Good edit; thanks from me too. --kingboyk (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

While I'm here, is All Time Top 1000 Albums (which is cited in the Aftermath article) considered a reliable source for ratings? (it appears to be an opinion poll, but one put together by a well-known and respected music journalist). If it is considered reliable and if either of you have a copy of it, would you mind having a look and telling me if The KLF's White Room and/or Chill Out are placed and if so at what positions and in which edition? --kingboyk (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

kingboyk, I don't have a copy of it, I'm afraid. I think I'm right in saying that Acclaimed Music ignores the rankings completely, for what it's worth (by that I mean, we've never been able to establish Acclaimed as a reliable source here, despite its continued appearance in GAs and FAs). I have read that the respondents included critics – it's in one of the sources cited at the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, from memory.

Last year someone went all out in adding mention of the various Larkin All Time rankings in album articles across the encyclopedia, caused a bit of a stir. I supported the inclusion, partly to ensure a UK voice in the face of the almost ubiquitous presence of an album's ranking on Rolling Stone's best albums list (and no one else's), also because the book features quite heavily in the Carys Wyn Jones book mentioned above. Wyn Jones cites and lists each of the three All Time editions' top rankings in the same company as the top albums in lists by Rolling Stone, the NME, The Observer, Q, Mojo, Gambaccini's Critics' Choice, Time Out and VH1. (That is, refers to the lists throughout her book when discussing the most "canonical" rock albums, and then lists the top albums in each poll in one of the book's appendixes – if you're able to get much of a preview in the google books link.) So I support it, although that's on the understanding that music critics have taken part. But yes, it does appear to have been compiled from listeners' opinions for the main part. JG66 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, thanks. Whilst I'm sure I'd find much to enjoy in The Rock Canon it won't help me with KLF articles as they weren't a rock band :) [alas]. --kingboyk (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The Beatles' Story

At The Beatles' Story, just because you don't care about TYPE in the infobox, that doesn't mean nobody else does. See Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello there

Gosh, you've been busy. Congrats on all the GAs! [Why have you stopped at GA, or have you not noted your FAs?]

Do you have any idea or opinion about why the Beatles template includes articles like Apple scruffs (nice article) and The Scotch of St. James (?!), and yet does not have room for Neil Aspinall, Brian Epstein, Mal Evans, George Martin or Alistair Taylor? I mean, without Mr Epstein we'd probably not be having this discussion.

I attempted to re-add the inner circle but was reverted by user ILIL. I have left my thoughts on the reversion Template_talk:The_Beatles#Inner_circle_missing,_notably_Brian_Epstein_and_George_Martin.

I do not consider this canvassing, as for all I know you may agree with the reversion; it's just that you're one of the few folks still around that I know from the early days of WP:BEATLES.

If you choose to reply and do so here, please ping me. I have the template and template talk watchlisted. --kingboyk (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems my memory is playing tricks on me as you've only been around since 2012? That's odd. I must have seen your name in Beatle related places so frequently in recent times that I misremembered it as you being around when Lar and I set up the project in 2006 :/ --kingboyk (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi kingboyk and thanks for your words of encouragement. I must get back on the GA trail – there should be at least 20 articles I've got up to standard over the last couple of years but just haven't summoned the final 2 per cent of effort to polish up for nomination. I've never gone down the FAC route, actually. I don't really see the point: the Beatles are so well known, and I imagine their articles get plenty of traffic without the need for signposting on Wikipedia's main page. (Also, over my first couple of years here, 2012–14, I saw Beatles articles making FA and I wasn't too impressed with the nominating editor – the process became all about them, with subject and content taking second place. So I wasn't too impressed with FAC either, as a result.)

Talking about editors I don't like – and there really are only a very few over my entire time editing here(!) – I wouldn't pay any attention to what ILIL thinks. I've never found he possesses the competency to support his position on anything, nor the ability to work with other editors. There was a separate navbox for people associated with the Beatles until a few years ago. That was deleted. But I agree with you – of course the likes of Epstein (especially Epstein), Aspinall, Evans, Martin, etc. should be included in the band's main navbox. Derek Taylor and Peter Brown also, I should think. I'll add my support at the template talk page.

Cheers, ... oh, and thanks for your role in starting the project. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

[Slotting in here. Isn't indentation fun?] I've added the 2 people you mentioned to {{The Beatles}} as I agree with the suggestion; I had merely overlooked them. I'm not going to fight any reversion, however. Perhaps it might be worth splitting 'people' into "Management" and "Production" subsections somewhat like the 2007 version of the template, which might discourage editors from adding peripheral characters. The other option of course is simply to monitor the template and undo any dubious additions. I'm afraid I can devote no more time to it, as I have KLF-articles and real-life business to attend to. This ought to be the last communication from me, at least on the topics currently under discussion. I apologise for taking up so much of your time. If you ever need anything feel free to ping me or drop me a line on my talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware of any personal dispute; now this really looks live canvassing! I must therefore tread carefully. The best bet I think will be if I post at WT:BEATLES which might get more eyes on the issue than a post on the template talk page. The template only has 50 watchers (seems extraordinarily low to me!), whereas the WikiProject has 128.

I could ramble on about the GA and FA processes for hours - and will, so you might want to skip the history lesson and go direct to my question in the last paragraph! :) Besides the Beatles WikiProject, I set up a micro-project WP:KLF to cover the works of the British band/artists The KLF. It was really just a 2-man project, plus a 3rd editor who'd laid the foundations on many articles and set up a transcription library website which proved invaluable for research. We achieved approximately 19 GAs and 4 FAs (5 if one includes the closely related band The Orb).

My main writing partner left disillusioned. I forget why. but it might have been because album cover scans were being removed zealously, or because of some of the other irritating things which happen here. I semi-retired in early 2008 for similar reasons and because I got a new time-consuming job, but came back last year (whether I am back permanently or not remains to be seen).

So, our flagship article, The KLF. "The KLF was named best article in the Humanities & Culture class at Wikimania 2006" - but nobody told us (I found out accidentally). The nominator, who had nothing to do with the article, even won a prize! I didn't want any prize and turned down the later offer of a T-shirt or something; I just found the process incredible. The article became an FA in 2006, was on the front page in 2007... and in 2009, it was decided it's not good enough to be an FA any more. Hero to zero in 3 years. Quite infuriating, and it does make one wonder whether it's worth the time and effort to go through FAC. Meanwhile, the artists concerned have written about the article (positively), and it's been ripped off by hundreds or thousands of journalists, authors and websites. I often think we should have written a book instead.

I don't remember FAC being unfriendly or excessively fussy in those days. Perhaps it was too lax then and that's why we got delisted (our other FAs do still hold the status, however).

Being an FA doesn't guarantee a front page appearance (one of our FAs was proposed for a front page appearance after my semi-retirement, and was turned down because it contains a very rude word in the title); FA denotes the article as peer-reviewed, professional quality and one of Wikipedia's best articles. As an editor all you get, really, is bragging rights/a userbox and the possibility of a front page appearance. I found some personal satisfaction from achieving FAs, and it is a great boon to a WikiProject to get an article promoted, but if you think it's not worth the bother and/or disagree with elements of the process I respect that and have sympathy for the view. Looking at some of the FACs and FARs, I too am somewhat reluctant/hesitant to get involved as it seems rather combative and I fear having my work ripped to shreds. My heart keeps telling me "take The KLF back to FA status!" and then the head says "no!!!!!" :)

The big change I have observed since my return is with regards to GAs. I remember the GA process as being a step up from B class, and it was fun to participate in and very casual. Now it seems to be FA-minus, and there's a massive queue for reviews. If I had a very high quality article ready for review, I'd seriously consider skipping GA now and go straight to FA (or not bother with either:)).

One Beatles-related article I'd always hoped would get some love and maybe rise to GA or FA is Apple Corps. Is that article on your radar for future work? --kingboyk (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

kingboyk: Quick reply, just on your opening point here (I'm still responding on the Aftermath issue above). No, it's not canvassing – there's no RfC underway after all. It was probably not helpful of me to add my opinion of the editor; it wasn't a case of getting personal for the sake of getting personal, it was to say that almost all editors add something constructive to the project, but one or two do not and have a reputation for being disruptive and/or inconsiderate. However you choose to go about it, I'm confident you'll find the majority of editors agreeing that Brian Epstein and George Martin, and possibly those others, should be included in the template. JG66 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Missed something: I think the inclusion of Apple scruffs is fine, and more is needed in that article to support the scruffs' notability. Can't for the life of me work out what The Scotch of St. James is doing in the template. More deserving (although I'm not suggesting we add it) would be Sibylla's, because that was a '60s club that at least had some direct involvement from a Beatle. JG66 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mean to imply that Apple scruffs should not be on the template (despite calling it "fluff" :)). I find that story rather cute, and George was sufficiently moved by their dedication to write a song about them. They're part of the Beatles and Apple story. I was merely juxtaposing their importance relative to the inner circle who are absent. As for "The Scotch of St. James" - I had to look it up. Beats me. (I then had to double check it wasn't me who put it there in the first place ;) but nah, I'm good). Thanks for the responses and for reading this far, if you got this far. --kingboyk (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The talk about the Apple scruffs led me to reading Apple Scruffs (song). I love that song but had no idea it is critically acclaimed and received lots of airplay. You should imho have this article on your GA candidates list.

From there I've found myself reading a number of articles, many of which I'm sure are your work. I learnt a lot in Wah-Wah (song) (and I thought I knew most things there are know about the Beatles). Some of the material I read made me quite emotional (I miss George; I share many of his passions besides loving his music - Bob Dylan, Asia, Formula 1... In fact, I was in the Far East when he died; I was in Kuala Lumpur, and the little "Reggae Bar" I hung out in played his live album as a tribute. It was nice to be amongst music lovers on that sad day). If these articles are fair indicators, and I believe they are, your work is exceptional (a further message will follow with regards to this observation). --kingboyk (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

kingboyk: Oh boy, you're showering me with praise (which is most kind) and giving me new items to respond to each time, because you raise points that resonate with me also ...

"Scruffs" – it's a lovely, cheeky little song, isn't it? The doubled slide and backing vocals are just sublime.

But George H. generally ... My happiest times here on Wikipedia have been when working on Harrison song articles, often for songs that received little in the way of critical acclaim at the time but have such an interesting (imo) story behind them, or include a couple of Pythonesque jokes, or have attracted a lot of thoughtful commentary from biographers and musicologists. You mention being in KL when he died; I remember, much more recently, going to Hawaii and immediately gaining a better understanding of him and his songs. It made writing articles for the likes of "Here Comes the Moon", "Soft-Hearted Hana", "Soft Touch" such a treat, same for his collaborations with Ravi Shankar.

What holds my interest here is that I'm learning so much as I write, about things way beyond your typical pop song. Him and John Lennon: of course they got didactic and preachy at times, but I'm constantly in awe of how they strived for new dimensions and not in a calculated way – just as a means of self-expression. I mean, I've still not recovered from fully appreciating (perhaps in about 2015) just how bold it was for Harrison to create songs like "Love You To" and "Within You Without You": in his early twenties, for a pop record, for a Beatles record ... And JL with the likes of "Tomorrow Never Knows", "I Am the Walrus", "Revolution 9", too ... Just astonishing; I'm regularly floored by that realisation. I can safely say I'm far more of a curious learner, about the Beatles' artistry and cultural impact, and about the 1960s generally, than I am a fan of the Beatles. Which is probably just as well, given that this is not a fan site(!). Man, I could go on for days about this ... JG66 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Their story is astonishing, indeed, and the age at which they achievemed what they did is something which still floors me. Even Brian Epstein was relatively young - dead at 32!

It could be argued - perhaps not by me, but it could be argued - that The Beatles (like the KLF) have a story more interesting than their music; just like Formula 1 is a soap opera occasionally interrupted by racing...

I've not been to Hawaii (but don't care much for the '79 album anyway); I have been to India but not Rishikesh (yet).

Not feeling too well atm, so will end this message here: I was born in the early 70s, so I didn't live through the group's existence (and hence my concurrent interest in the music of the late 80s/early 90s)... the point I'm trying to get to is that besides the books/magazines/records, the unofficial VHS The Compleat Beatles did a lot to convince me that there was magic in the Beatles story. If you've not seen that film you might want to check it out; I cannot of course guarantee that it hasn't aged horribly! --kingboyk (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

PS As both a fan of the Beatles (yes, guilty) and a petrolhead, this, from Anthology is very cool - the Threatles in a McLaren F1 (aka the greatest group ever in the greatest supercar ever, although one wag has commented "A very rare sight, three scousers in a fancy sports car that's not stolen" :)). [The car in that video is actually a loaner from McLaren; I think George's F1 hadn't been built yet. See, I could have chatted with George for hours without mentioning the "B" word; starting with last weekend's race, then "what's the McLaren like to drive, George?", closely followed by "can I have a go in it?" :)]

cquote

Thanks for your edits to The KLF, which I am still reviewing.

I now understand why {{cquote}} disappeared from that and other articles during my semi-retirement!

Personally, I like the quote markers, but there's no point trying to argue against the guardians of the MOS, particularly with an argument as weak as "but I like it!" :) It also looks like the merits of the template and the style guidelines have been discussed to death at Template talk:Cquote already.

Again, thanks for the enlightenment. --kingboyk (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

To answer your other question "why so many [dashes], why not use commas occasionally, esp in shorter sentences?": Maybe I don't like commas?

Don't worry; the article is nowhere near going to any quality review process, and if it does I'll call in some copy-editing help beforehand. I am aware, for instance, that the "Themes" section needs a thorough makeover, but there's a book to be read in the meantime which was published since we lost FA status which I gather is dedicated almost entirely to the themes behind the KLF and their connections to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. I have a copy of the book in my possession; now all I need is a virus-free beach to read it on :) --kingboyk (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The Beatles Barnstar

Looking through your talk page archives, you do not appear to have received this award - probably because most editors including myself were not aware of its existence :). If in fact you have been awarded it before, consider it a double honour well-earned.

		The WikiProject The Beatles barnstar
		The quantity and - more importantly - quality of the articles you have written about the Beatles and related topics and taken to GA status is outstanding. Reading some of them almost moved me to tears. Thank you for your hard work and long may it continue. --kingboyk (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) (co-founder of WP:BEATLES)

kingboyk: Thank you, that's really too kind. And it means a lot coming from one of the founders of the project, of course. Best, JG66 (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination)

I strongly suggest that you stop edit warring over pointless templates at the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate: Understood, thanks. And I appreciate you've given the other editor a similar message. JG66 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Music Barnstar

		The Music Barnstar
		I see you've made significant edits—hundreds—on numerous music articles since 2012. Thanks to editors like you, such cultural knowledge is readily accessible. Israell (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Israell! You're very kind. JG66 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

OBS

Hi JG, how've you been? It's been a long time. I hope you're well! I was listening to "Old Brown Shoe" this morning, which with "Ballad of John and Yoko" are up there in the top group of my favourite Beatles' tunes, and then just now I was reading the wiki article for "OBS". It looks like it's in solid shape. Are you ever planning to bring it to GA? I'd be happy to do the review (well, of course depending when you nominated it, I can't promise now I'd definitely have time then). Cool, talk to you soon. Moisejp (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah Moisejp, mighty good to hear from you, and yes, it's been a while! All good here, thanks, although for a few years now I've shied away from GA nominations. Never intended to quit the habit entirely, and I keep meaning to reverse the trend (which is possibly a regular theme of discussions on this talk page over the last year or two). Old Brown Shoe's definitely one of about 20 I expanded then put on the back burner. I'll get on to it now; would be great if you end up grabbing the review. It's one of the shorter articles from that pool of 20, anyway (eg, vs All You Need Is Love, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Rubber Soul [the latter strictly for masochists only], Magical Mystery Tour ...).

See you there perhaps. I always enjoy your (and Mick Gold's) improvements at Bob Dylan, btw. Had some ideas for Bob's page but that's for another time. JG66 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good, let me know when the article is ready for review, and hopefully I'll have time then. I likely should, but you know how it is, things can come up unexpectedly! Moisejp (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Moisejp, hi again. Just about to nominate the article, would be great if you could grab it. I'll continue double-checking sources and applying last-minute polish until/if you take it – then I'll back off. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, JG. I’m ready to take it. It may not be a super fast review but I’ll keep at it till it’s done. Cheers,Moisejp (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Moisejp, that's great news. Just nominating now. Best, JG66 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi JG, great work on OBS. I left one more comment recommending you merge footnotes 4 and 5. Hey, I know in the past you haven't had good experiences on the FAC page—and that you get asked about this all the time—but I've got to say I really think OBS is a wonderful article, maybe my favourite of all your articles (at least from memory), even though there are so many very good ones. I especially enjoyed all the extra details in it, including the detail about how George got the Hells Angels to leave, and the details about John's growing enthusiasm for the song. If you were to want to cast aside your wariness and give FAC a new chance with fresh eyes, you would definitely have my support on this article! What do you say, would you have any interest at all in tentatively dipping your toes in the FAC waters with this fantastic article?! I think it could be a fabulous hit! Moisejp (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Moisejp. Wow, thanks – as if it's not enough that the article's now a GA, your praise is very generous. Sorry, I got a bit distracted towards the end by something at Talk:John Lennon; I'll check the GA review page and fix that last point you mention.

The Hells Angels thing is hilarious. As with most things Harrison, there's always a backstory – because he invited them to stop by Apple when he was in San Francisco seeking out the Krishnas (in August 1967, I guess), not thinking for a minute they ever would. So while he's away in California and New York in late '68, Apple becomes bedlam: the Angels have arrived, intending to take on the Warsaw Pact forces and "sort out Czechoslovakia", but terrifying everyone at Apple; and the Radha Krishna crew have arrived to set up a London temple and are seeking out George for assistance. The Krishnas and the Angels get on fine, but Aspinall and all the Apple staffers, and John and Yoko, are petrified. It's typical 1960s zaniness, and the Beatles, especially Lennon and Harrison with their interaction with causes, end up being a magnet for it all.

Ah, the FA thing ... I hear what you say and, again, I really do appreciate your encouragement. Right now, it's just great to be back among the GA nominators (after maybe three years away), and I hope to get a few more nominated soon. It's been fabulous working with you again; I always consider our interactions here, along with mine and (long-retired) Evanh2008, to be my absolute top experiences on Wikipedia. Big thanks once again! JG66 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey man, I'm honoured to be up there with your top interactions on Wikipedia. I've enjoyed our interactions for sure too. I see you've been working on "I Me Mine". Who knows, maybe I can try to review that too; let me know when you're done and I can see where I'm at. (Also "Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Here Comes the Sun", let me know when you get to them.) I remember many years ago I told you I was planning to spruce up "If Not For You" (which I never did) and you mentioned at the time you might have some further details to add to the Harrison section. Maybe at some point we can try to collaborate on it and bring it to GA together. Anyway, I'm really glad you're back to working on GAs. It's a pleasure to see the work you do. Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's definitely a deal – IMM looks like being the next one, and I'll keep you informed about those others. Yeah, with "If Not for You", I think it was mainly about why George ended up with such different lyrics from Bob's New Morning track. I read something years ago – obviously when you and I were discussing it – about how Bob gave him a rough home demo, but a bit too rough: he'd recorded it with his guitar facing right into the mic, which made his vocal almost inaudible, so George had to join the dots when it came to some of the song's words. I thought that story was so typical Dylan! (Equally typical is that now I can't remember which book I read it in ...) JG66 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see you're working on "I Need You". When I listed "Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Here Comes the Sun" above, I almost also included "I Need You" (and maybe "Taxman", "You Like Me Too Much", "Don't Bother Me") in the list, but I saw no work had been done at that time on "I Need You" and I guessed maybe it wasn't a priority for you, as some might think it was one of his more "teenybopper-ish" songs. Anyway, cool, glad to see you're working on it. I think I'll probably be able to get to "IMM" quite soon, but would just like to make a little more progress on my own project. I'm looking forward to seeing your addition to "If Not For You" when you find the info. Talk soon! Moisejp (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, I'd not done anything on "I Need You", nor "Don't Bother Me" and "Taxman" (as far as I know), before now. I think I just needed to de-yogi-fy somewhat after "I Me Mine"; I'm not one for sentimental love songs, as a rule, but the (for once) straightforward, boy-loves-girl theme was kinda welcome! But "Don't Bother Me", ah ... the Stones or Them could've done that song really well. JG66 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Collaborations involving multiple ex-Beatles page

Hello, there used to be a page called Collaborations between ex-Beatles which has been changed to the clunky "Collaborations involving multiple ex-Beatles" with some equally clunky explanation. The editor then interrupted the grey block of death to bring John and George back from the dead. I've returned John and George back to eternity but I'm interested in your opinion of the name change. Stay safeHotcop2 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hotcop2, hi. Yeah, what a strange title ... I'll weigh in at the talk page. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Brown Shoe

The article Old Brown Shoe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Old Brown Shoe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Tom Hull

I see you have some experience with music critic bios. I made Tom Hull (critic) recently. It relies much on Hull's account (would this be a primary source issue?), and I can't find a usable image of him online - the only image I can find at all is what looks like a selfie, published in the RockCritics.com interview. So I ask if it would be worth nominating for good-article review? Also, I'm considering doing the same for album era, just need to expand the lead first. isento (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I sent Hull a message about his article via his website lol - he had recognized a previous edit I made with his name. isento (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to say (because I appreciate you've done the work already), I'm not entirely sure he merits an article here. Judging by the list of references at least, the only truly independent 3rd party source that identifies him as being in any way significant is Dai Griffiths. Even then, the author's highlighting him merely for his role in elevating appreciation of another critic's writings. (I was a bit surprised also when you added the tomhull.com ratings at Aftermath, actually.) That's my feeling, from a distance, anyway.

This reminds me of Richard Riegel, a critic I've long thought about writing an article about. (And irony of ironies, he posts on that page at rockcritics.com you link to above.) Like Hull, Riegel was a protégé of another influential journalist – in this case, Lester Bangs at Creem. He's also something of a part-time critic, but his work has received attention in its own right, just not quite enough to make me go ahead and start an article, if I remember right. JG66 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are fair points, and Hull echoed the question of notability (having imagined in the past if someone had started an article on him) in his email back to me. I've attempted a real lead for album era, along with some additions and consolidation of content, and have nominated it. I look forward to any improvements you can make, if you can and see fit. isento (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I'd been thinking of Album era since a new article came up at Rock's Backpages quite recently. Nothing there that expands on what you're already added on things post-1990, unfortunately.

There were a couple of points I'd thought about including, inspired by your taking the discussion towards the listener and consumer's perspective in the late '60s/1970s, actually. Would want to ensure that the sources approach the points from an album era perspective (rather than us editors getting overly creative), so they might not make the grade for a while. I think you've got the subject covered anyway; anything new might be a bonus, but it's only tangential. Will try to take a look soon. JG66 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Me Mine

The article I Me Mine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Me Mine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi JG66! I have a quick question. Do you happen to own the 3rd edition of Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums (2000) and if not would you know someone who does? Thanks! – zmbro _(talk) 14:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey zmbro, I'm afraid I don't have any of his titles. The book is mentioned in Carys Wyn Jones' The Rock Canon, which is the only involvement I've had with it. I'd say get on to user:Muso805, who seems to have every edition of every Larkin book. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock

Just a suggestion... Would it not be easier all round to raise questions about the content, or to highlight major changes you are making (with reasons), on the article talk page, rather than in edit summaries? That way, more of us may be able to contribute constructively. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was trying to get myself to a level of knowledge and understanding with the article, first, and then go to the talk page with something approaching a cohesive argument. No chance of the latter (just confusion on my part) ... Will post there soon. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ob-La-Di

In regard to this, I know you're a Master Editor here so know what you're talking about. So instead of making this its own section as I did the first time, I made it a separate paragraph. I did this mostly because I was expecting the song being used as a TV theme song to stand out, but didn't notice it in the article. At first, I thought it wasn't even in there and was going to add it. If I'm doing something wrong here, let me know! Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's definitely something in either the Manual of Style or guidelines to writing Wikipedia articles that says not to set just one or two sentences as a standalone section/subsection, and I'm pretty sure there's similar advice regarding paragraph length ... Just because a cover version has been used as a TV theme song doesn't mean it's some sort of new development or breakaway from the subject. If there's more commentary to add about this recording's significance, from reliable sources, that would be different. JG66 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a bit to it taken from the Life_Goes_On_(TV_series) article. It says the song wasn't used on the DVD, except for the pilot, due to high licensing fees for the Beatle's song. The problem is that article doesn't identify its source (and the source below it is out of date). I did find individual reviews of the DVD from customers who talked about the song being replaced, but I doubt those would count as reliable sources. I'll look some more. Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon genre classification

Thanks for your advice. The Wikipedia Art Rock page itself, already implicitly linked, has numerous references to Pink Floyd, and even a picture of them performing Dark Side of The Moon. My summarily reverted genre classification debate section [1] essentially crystalises the differences between prog and art rock, explained there, and why Dark Side sits more comfortably in the latter category. Also found a review where Dark Side has been formally classified as art rock, FWIW: [2]. I grew up in the seventies, listening to Dark Side on my Uncle's HMV BSR turntable, and Floyd was never considered prog then; that was the domain of Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, ELP, et al: [3].

Sorry, but, in my opinion, the single genre assignation of Progressive Rock to Dark Side is a misrepresentation of this seminal album, bugging me for a few months now, and I feel that I must make a stand here. Happy to accept the consequences, but at least others reviewing the page history will see that I tried. (BTW, I see no utility in going the Talk page route, as I know that I'll be stonewalled by johnny-come-lately Floyd aficionados, with the "not proper prog" chip on their shoulder, and I don't have the time to get embroiled in a no-win discussion. Besides, I'd rather others see my fate in the immutable revision history, so this POV might gain some traction in future.) Best wishes and no hard feelings either way.

P.S. Nothing in the annals of rock can touch that moment when David Gilmour scrapes his pick down the A string, then launches into those first few imperious bends of the Time guitar solo. AstralCiaran (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

JG66, please forgive me jumping in on your talk page like this.

AstralCiaran, one of the main tricks to getting something like that changed on Wikipedia is providing a recognized, reliable source that says so. Otherwise, editors like you (and me, and, frankly, anybody) can run into the problem of not getting our edits accepted.

I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan, and have seen it referred to as art rock. I'll look for a source or two. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I posted a note with linked sources on the talk page. See what you think. Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alden Loveshade: Thanks, I really appreciate your help and advice. To be honest, this has all been a bit stressful, and I'm not sure that I have the energy or diplomatic skills to take on a cohort of prog wannabes, with axes to grind on this obviously sensitive subject, but will try to follow-up your opening salvo on the talk page; thanks for taking the time to track down those sources. Just want to see an accurate representation of this masterpiece. AstralCiaran (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Floyd was never considered prog then; that was the domain of Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, ELP, et al: [4]." Unfortunately, that Guardian blog opinion piece is not the most reliable source that Pink Floyd were not prog, as it makes the bizarre assertion that Marillion were not inspired by Pink Floyd. That blows a bit of a hole in his credibility. [[User:Roderickstilley|Roderickstilley]] ([[User talk:Roderickstilley|talk]]) (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I don't have anything to add here. Best to keep discussion of this issue at Talk:TDSOTM so all editors get a chance to weigh in. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Rock backpages request

Hi JG66! Following up to your offer a few months ago, would you be able to check out the rock backpages site and see if you could find the author of the original Melody Maker review of Hunky Dory? The one that calls the album "the most inventive piece of song-writing to have appeared on record in a considerable time". The haven't been able to find a name attached to this as Pegg only says "Melody Maker called it" and I believe Cann as well. I'd greatly appreciate it! Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 18:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zmbro. Sorry, I checked but can't see anything there. I think it's most likely to have been written by Roy Hollingworth, but that's only a semi-informed guess. If not, then maybe Richard Williams.

I suppose you've tried The History of Rock? I searched, quickly, in the 1971 and 1972 issues for "inventive" and "Hunky" but nothing relevant came up. Might be worth looking at those mags in a bit more detail, though: as with titles in the NME Originals and Uncut Ultimate Music Guide series, HoR often reproduce/d an MM or NME review or article in edited form, to fit the page, so the magic words "most inventive piece of song-writing" might not have made the cut. (Kinda unlikely perhaps, since it's obviously a major statement about the album, but I'm just thinking aloud ...) Only other thing I can think of is a Record Collector '70s Bowie special from about 2017 – from memory, that included some MM and NME pieces. I bought it for a friend before she went on holiday; I'll see if she's still got it, but, well, I wouldn't hold get your hopes up ... JG66 (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Understandable. I'll see what else I can find. Thanks for checking! – zmbro _(talk) 14:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yellow Submarine (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Please stop un-archiving old discussions. GiantSnowman 12:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, they're not old discussions. At least the one I filed wasn't – it's three days old and no one's even addressed it. Why is this, and why should it be archived as if it has been addressed? Over the last year or two, I've increasingly found the whole trust-the-admins route a waste of time, and this just proves it. JG66 (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The bot archives any discussion that has not been discussed in 3 days. What is your issue, let's see if I can help. GiantSnowman 12:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, sorry, I posted at Talk:AN/I before seeing that you'd replied. Perhaps discussion should continue there, I don't know – I do appreciate you offering to help, and thank you. It's the absence of that reaching out that I've been finding so frustrating. JG66 (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry - I suggest we keep it one place, and at WT:ANI, you'll get more eyes (and therefore hopefully input) there. GiantSnowman 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Carrying on what we discussed on the Happiness is a Warm Gun talk page

Since the discussion on the Happiness is a Warm Gun talk page is officially closed until further notice, I thought I may discuss some of my experience with The Beatles' songs growing up in the 2000's. I used to think that John Lennon sang lead on most of the George Harrison-sung compositions, because I didn't originally know that George and Ringo Starr sang lead. Yet I was confused as to why Ringo's vocal on "Yellow Submarine" sounded nothing like John and Paul McCartney's vocals. But even when I realised that George did sing lead on some tracks, I found his voice to be very difficult to distinguish from John's. When John sang I usually knew it was him, but when George sang I often thought it was John singing as well.

But I did find some key differences, such as George having a lighter and warmer timbre, and a higher tessitura, a smoother vocal, and a thicker accent. And John having a more raspy vocal and a not as thick but still thick accent. I still don't understand how people can think that Ringo sang lead on "Lady Madonna" or "Back in the U.S.S.R." because the timbre of the vocal is too light, and the voice is too high. While Paul may have crossed the barrier between tenor and baritone, I still find it obvious that his timbre lies within the tenor range, and even if he did disguise his vocal as a baritone's vocal, that's because he had a very impressive range. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you agree with my statements? I'm just interested in hearing what you think about it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi C.Syde. Sorry, I don't have a lot to offer on this – and I had to look up that word tessitura(!)

I think with George vs John, there's definitely an overlap in the mid '60s. Songs like "Think for Yourself" and "I Want to Tell You" could easily be sung by Lennon. But the idea that many people at the time thought "Lady Madonna" and "Back in the U.S.S.R." were sung by Ringo I really do understand. From reading about those songs, it was a case of McCartney doing an "Elvis impersonation", and listeners hadn't heard that before. They'd heard McCartney singing rock 'n' roll of course, but doing so sincerely and unselfconsciously, whereas in 1968 he appeared to be imitating a 1950s R 'n R singer. (This is part of the pastiche/parody quality that started to annoy critics in 1968, so I've read.)

When I was a kid and first heard the Beatles – must've been compilations like the Red and Blue albums or Past Masters – there were always a few songs I wasn't sure about. I bet my older brother a million quid that McCartney sang "Hey Jude" (he kept insisting it was Lennon). Think it's safe to say that all the reliable sources generally support my view there. Which reminds me – he still hasn't paid up yet ... JG66 (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, both George and John sang a lot of their Beatles songs in the low tenor/high baritone range, which is one of the numerous things that initially made it difficult for me to distinguish them. Starting from the late 60's George opted for a higher register than the one that he used in the early and mid 60's.

I can sort of get why some people would think that Ringo sang lead on "Lady Madonna" and "Back in the U.S.S.R." because I do feel that if Ringo's voice was higher, he'd probably sound more like Paul. But I still think that one would have to be quite inexperienced to think that Ringo sang lead on "Lady Madonna" and "Back in the U.S.S.R." because the timbre is still quite warm and doesn't really sound like a baritone, it sounds much more like a tenor imitating a baritone. I find the way Paul hits the high notes in "Lady Madonna" to be too natural and effortless than if Ringo were to try to reach them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Insults

There was no need for the "you're not all there" comment. That's a disgusting thing to say on a platform like Wikipedia. Keep it civil. Isaacsorry (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry: I'm sorry you've taken offence at the comment, but it seemed entirely apt, to be honest. I'd reverted your edit with an explanation, and you went and added pretty much the same information again. Leads do not have to be so detailed. More importantly, numerous editors have approached you on your talk page about the way you're rewriting or expanding article leads, and your changes have been reverted by other editors (ie, apart from those on your talk page) in articles I watch. It doesn't seem that you're interested in taking this feedback on board – so that's where a comment like "You're just not all there, are you" comes from.

It's one thing being sensitive to derogatory comments made about you based on your edits, but you could always be sensitive and respectful to editors (I'm thinking up to 10 of them/us by now) who have taken issue with the way you arrive at articles, often GAs and FAs, and add to the lead sections. For a while, this has become so commonplace that I'm thinking, "What are you doing now?" with almost every lead-related edit I see you make. As I've said to you before, your changes often show little consideration for what's already in the lead (eg, you'll repeat info and links), and/or for how an issue is covered in the main body. And it's the latter that determines what should appear in the lead, not your (or anyone's) personal opinion. JG66 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi JG66, Isaacsorry has continued to make inappropriate edits to ledes since this warning. I've made an ANI report about his editing if you'd like to add any additional information. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doc Strange, I'm sorry to hear that. I may well weigh in at the ANI thread sometime. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday and Today

Hi there,

After your edit I made a post on the Yesterday and Today talk page just asking for clarification. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking to me there – I thought it was just about me ... Not much to say, but I've replied on the article talk page. JG66 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

my edit to "Circles (George Harrison song)"

Regarding my edit to "Circles (George Harrison song)": you have undone my revision 976876542, because (quote) "that's not what the source says (and Wikipedia's only interested in reporting what reliable sources say, not our individual observations)" (unquote).

It may be the case that when Kenneth Womack ("the source") wrote his acclaimed book "The Beatles Encyclopedia: Everything Fab Four" he was aware of only 23 songs recorded during the Kinfauns/Esher sessions in May 1968, as most of the bootlegs circulating over the years carried 23 (or less) songs.

But in the meantime it is general knowledge that (at least) 27 songs have been recorded at Georges's house, as in November 2018 twenty-seven original Esher demos were released in high-quality as part of the deluxe 50th Anniversary reissue of The Beatles, taken from Harrison's original 4-track master tapes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_bootleg_recordings and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_(album)#Reissues ).

So, wikipedia.org being a "reliable source", we can agree on "27 songs", right?

Beste Gruesse, Gerd

Gerd Hanke (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of Kenny Womack's book being "acclaimed" (who by?!). He gives 23 songs because that was the number actually recorded at Esher. As I understand it (I think it's covered in Richie Unterberger's book Unreleased Beatles too), Lennon had taped four others at his home, and these songs were then transferred to Harrison's tapes when the band got together at Kinfauns. So the Esher demos end up totalling 27 songs, yes, but demos for only 23 were made there. I'll revisit the text to clarify the point perhaps. JG66 (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The Who

I'm pleased you think my change was an improvement. I thought I might be reverted given that it's a Good Article and, looking back at the edit history for September, I see that this comment was already made by a user called User:Isaacsorry who was criticised by another user for making changes to the lead. But it didn't look right to me in its previous phrasing. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rodericksilly. Yes, it was definitely an improvement – like you said, large record sales don't necessarily equate to widespread influence, and vice versa. (eg, The Band's Music from Big Pink, Van Morrison's Astral Weeks and Nick Drake's albums never sold in huge numbers but they're all highly influential.)

On the Isaacsorry front, I don't know about at the Who, but he was making a point of reworking lead sections, often in FAs and GAs, and not always constructively. (You'll see an exchange further up the page here, and last I saw, there was plenty more from other editors on his talk page.) So it was possibly seen as purely disruptive editing at the Who – an unfortunate consequence of gaining a bad reputation, I guess. Which is a shame because I thought he made some decent improvements to the Beach Boys lead, too. JG66 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing my errors. Kind regards, --IWI (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, ImprovedWikiImprovment. Thanks, that's most kind of you. JG66 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

original research

What is wrong with crediting Ringo singing backing vocals on Flying and Hey Jude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastypotato0932 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Check-in

Hi JG66! It's been a while since we talked so I thought I'd check-in. How are things going? I see you've been working on George's solo stuff. Ever thought about working on Paul's solo stuff, like "Maybe I'm Amazed" or Ram? I would myself but still got a ton of Bowie stuff to do. :-) Hope all is well! – zmbro _(talk) 22:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey zmbro – yeah, life's good thanks. It's been a case of going back to some George H GAs, actually. I'd built up such a pile of extra info to add to the articles, over several years, and then realising the 50th anniversary of ATMP was coming up finally got me down to work there.

Paul's stuff? Ah ...

Years ago, I had McCartney almost ready to roll for GA nom, just didn't pull the trigger. Had always thought I'd do Ram straight afterwards. For me, the problem when working on McCartney articles, and to some extent on McCartney/Beatles song articles, is that he was and is such a PR machine that you're forever coming across major inconsistencies between what he said and did way back when, on one hand, and what he subsequently said he said and did. Not only that but also between his version of events and the recollections of others who were involved. I don't know if that makes any sense to you: it comes down to what some sources identify as his ambitious and populist stance, and his moulding past events to suit a more comfortable scenario in the present. I know you're familiar with Peter Doggett's writing; his book You Never Give Me Your Money is extraordinary (in my opinion) in its unravelling of these smokescreens and its insights into McCartney's motivations ...

All in all, it makes working on McCartney solo articles a bit exhausting and demoralising. Not just because the artist's often presented in an unflattering light as he's making or promoting the album (eg, his ignoring advice from others about the album, not letting musicians or band members genuinely contribute), but also because his description of the period, decades later, can be so at odds with most others people's. Meaning, there's sort of two layers of disingenuousness on his part.

Sorry, Zim – way more here than you wanted, right?(!) This is all related to feelings I've had for years about the Paul McCartney article and how whitewashed and airbrushed his history has become in Wikipedia's presentation. There's very little, nothing in some cases, on less glorious aspects or events that receive no end of coverage in reliable sources and have also received plenty of comment from McCartney himself. Of course the article's a BLP, but take Yoko Ono#Public image, Phil Collins#Criticism and Eric Clapton#Political views and controversy. And during Bowie's lifetime, our article didn't shy away from discussing his controversies either. JG66 (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I understand what you mean. I'll always love Paul but over the years I have learned that he hasn't always been the greatest person, especially in regards to quoting history. Regardless I'll always love him. But yeah, Bowie definitely wasn't the greatest person at times, especially during his Thin White Duke period or some events that apparently happened in the mid-late 1980s. I have also found that he sometimes gives conflicting statements regarding his music as well, especially during his cocaine period, but to be fair if I was so high to the point where I couldn't remember recording an entire album I probably wouldn't remember stuff either. Nonetheless, I'm enjoying expanding all his articles; honestly much needed and I'm surprised it's not happened sooner. Not sure if I plan to do his entire discography, but a good portion of it. Anyways, good to catch up. Looking forward to seeing your future projects. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Powerful at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Not about you, but as I had to mention you... (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tbhotch. Yes, I was on the point of reporting the editor at AN/EW so it's no surprise they're the subject of an AN report now. I'll comment there soon. JG66 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The Crown (tv series)

Hi - I notice you have made some changes to the date format in one of the season articles for this series. The format that is appropriate for this series is currently being discussed on the talk page of the main series article, and it would be more constructive if you would contribute your views to the discussion, which is HERE. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

MapReader, hi there. May well drop by the talk page as you suggest, but it seemed to me the issue was settled there, and the article carries a dmy dates tag, after all. Is there a problem with my changes? While there's US finance in the production, the show couldn't be more Brit English, which would normally suggests dmy, along with British English style, of course. JG66 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Certainly there's a consensus emerging, but the talk is ongoing. I agree with you, and the series itself is using DMY format on screen, but you will see from the discussion that there are a couple of editors of a different view. Adding your views to the talk page would be appropriate. MapReader (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rock's Backpages request

Hi JG66! I wanted to follow up on this post from many months back. Are you still a subscriber to rock's backpages? If so I was wondering if you could help me out. I'm working on expanding Bowie's Lodger currently and noticed a few reviews of the album available on RB. Pegg gave me a brief overview of Jon Savage's Melody Maker review so I'm good on that. However, I found two more from Sounds and Record Mirror that the biographers don't mention, and I was hoping you'd be able to help me out with these two? I'd greatly appreciate it. If you're no longer a subscriber then don't worry about it. Thanks man :-) – zmbro _(talk) 01:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hiya zim. Yep, still RBP-ing – I'm gonna have to start selling guitars and books to fund the habit. You mention having an overview of the great Jon Savage's MM piece via Pegg, but you should be able to access that for free at RBP, no? I think you'd have to sign up for the monthly newsletter, but that's quite fun (well, it doesn't cost anything).

With the Record Mirror review, I can't believe your luck: American/World Radio History seems to have every single issue for 1974–78 and 1980, but not a single one for '79. Bizarre. (I'm sure you tried there first up.)

Anyway, of course the answer's yes. But look, I'm feeling well lazy right now, been up all night doing my Keef Richards impersonations, but at the same time, I'm thinking if I don't act on this straight away, I probably never will. At least two of the three non-free pieces (ie, adding the Paul Yamada, New York Rocker article, which looks like it could be v useful) are so long – at least to someone like me who's more used to '60s album articles and contemp reviews that say very little. Sooo, as soon as you reply to this, I'll paste something substantial at your talk page, quite by mistake, which you should immediately delete ... JG66 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I did use world radio history for all the old Billboard issues, but of course, they wouldn't have any for 1979. But yeah if you wanna post any reviews on my talk page or sandbox and let me do the rest I'm more than happy to do it that way. Thanks again :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks for letting me know Savage's review was free. Just made an account! – zmbro _(talk) 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

OK zim, it's there. Please deal with immediately, of course ... Enjoy! JG66 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I copied all the info onto a word doc and removed from my sandbox :-) – zmbro _(talk) 02:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi JG66! I wanted to know if I could request your assistance with Rock's Backpages again? I'm wanting these two reviews for Bowie's Let's Dance: Record and NME. I'd greatly appreciate it. Hope things are well! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 19:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Netherlands category

I moved the categories because WP:SUBCAT says "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." The Dutch Top 40 and Single Top 100 cats are subcats of the number-one singles in the Netherlands, so that's why I moved them. What's wrong with that? ResPM ^{come to my window} 18:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what the SUBCAT business is about. I'm concerned about, and was referring to, why you take a renamed category and move it into an illogical position, eg at Lady Madonna, where suddenly a chart-topping cat sits removed from the others. JG66 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean why did I move the category on the page? That's how HotCat works. It automatically places newly added categories at the bottom of a page. Technically, I didn't move anything myself. ResPM ^{come to my window} 18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It automatically moves categories to the bottom a page? Well, what a crap solution that is, and it's obviously gonna piss some people off. JG66 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, you can't add cats "in between" others with HotCat, so that's why the new cat was added at the very bottom. You can modify them, however, which is probably what I should have done for Lady Madonna, but for Michelle (song), I had to add 2 new cats, so I decided to just add both and remove the parent cat. I have no idea know how you like to organize categories, so I thought reverting was unnecessary, but this is just how it works. ResPM ^{come to my window} 18:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)