Talk:The Byrds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trvivia?

The Trivia section is a bit messed up. It's just a list of bands that they've influenced or had their songs covered by. No real interesting facts abuot the band like you might expect. Might it be renamed "Legacy" or "Influence" or something, then made into paragraphs? Monkeynutter

Sounds reasonable to me! InvictaHOG 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is anybody going to supply a picture of the band, or should we delete the box altogether here? 147.70.242.21 23:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I put one in. For bands that broke up or deceased artists, I try and find a promo shot from the label because they're easier to verify. The one I found says it's OK for "internet review outlets", in which this may count. Otherwise, the site I find it has to say if it's from Michael Ochs or Photofest so it can go up here. FotoPhest (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gram/Gene Clark/Parsons

• Hi, can someone just confirm that Gram Parsons, Gene Clark and Gene Parsons are in fact three entirely separate people (I'm trying to clean-up another article without knowing a whole lot about this subject area, please forgive my ignorance!) Jdcooper 18:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, they are 3 separate people. Gram Parsons (born Cecil Ingram Connor) & Gene Parsons are no relation. Gene Clark (born Harold Eugene Clark) is also not related.Budrocket 09:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes and Michael Clarke (1946-1993) is a fourth one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clarke_(musician) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.38.54 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Chesnut Mare, written with...

...New York psychologist Jacques Levy for "Gene Tryp", a C&W musical version of Henrik Ibsen's "Peer Gynt"... Stephan Koenig (still my pleasure, anyway).

Not to nit-pick...

This thing reads like an advertisement. Way off what the wiki should be going for.

I've taken out "The Byrds are widely considered to have been one of the most important and influential bands of the 1960s", which, apart from being weasel words, is equally true of a couple of dozen other bands. 83.70.35.36 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One weird thing

Why is the source for McGuinn being the only Byrd to play on "Mr Tambourine Man" a CNN article from 2006?? This has been common knowledge since the 1970s, and appears in every book about the band. This source seems misleading, because it makes the fact look like either rumour, or something recently discovered. Does it need a source at all? It's just a plain fact, like the Monkees not playing on their early records.

I've changed it for now, anyway. MrBronson 03:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also made it look less like "an advert". Quite a bold rewrite in some parts, but the same information is there, and it's still basically the same article. Just tightened it up, added missing links and took out all the POV stuff. Still needs a bit more work. MrBronson 05:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

This should be incorporated into the existing text. See WP:TRIV. John Reaves 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• Tom Petty, whose early single American Girl was sometimes mistaken by some listeners for a Byrds outtake or reunion recording, has covered So You Want To Be A Rock'N'Roll Star and I'll Feel A Whole Lot Better.
• Hüsker Dü covered Eight Miles High on an early single.
• Roxy Music covered Eight Miles High on their 1980 Flesh and Blood album.
• Robyn Hitchcock, who counts the Byrds as one of his biggest influences, has covered numerous of their songs both live and on record, amongst them: Bells Of Rhymney, Chimes Of Freedom, Draft Morning, Eight Miles High, I'll Feel A Whole Lot Better, Hickory Wind, Mr. Spaceman, Mr. Tambourine Man, Wild Mountain Thyme and You Ain't Going Nowhere.
• Roger McGuinn testified on July 11, 2000 for a U.S. Senate committee that The Byrds never received the royalties they were promised for their biggest hits, Mr. Tambourine Man and Turn! Turn! Turn!; they only received an advance that was split five ways and only amounted to "a few thousand dollars" per bandmember.
• Ride, An early 90's UK Shoegazer band, lists The Byrds as a primary influence. This influence is best demonstrated on the song "Like a Daydream" from their 1990 "Play" EP, or on the 1992 EP compilation "Smile", as well as on the entirety of the 1994 album, "Carnival of Light".
• Swervedriver, another 90's Shoegazer band also pays tribute to The Byrds with the song "The Birds" from their 1998 Album "99th Dream".

McGuinn, Clark and Hillman

I was considering redirecting this here, but this article doesn't mention this conglomeration of three Byrds members who scored a top forty hit in 1979. Anyone here capable of tackling it? Chubbles 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was at the London Hammersmith Odeon when MC&H did the soundcheck for their London gig (sometime in the late 1970s). The soundcheck was basically a Byrds concert ... amazing as I had never seen the original band live. The actual show, of course, was not like this. This might be worth a mention ... they were obviously enjoying themselves immensely ... but I have never seen any documentation of it. Has anyone seen this kind of Byrds soundcheck documented? Delverie (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Years active

I fail to see a reason why "1989-1990" should not be added to to the "Years Active" section. The band toured and recorded new material under the Byrds name. Those who revert my edit in that section should provide a reason as to why it shouldn't be there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.244.228 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, the onus is on you to provide a reason why it should included, since you want to add something. Secondly, there is a great deal of dispute of what constitutes the Byrds proper. A discussion of this in the article would be valid, as long as there are sources. But for the info box, it needs to be only the most uncontroversial information. Similar discussions at The Beatles have taken place, as to whether the new material for the Anthology series count as The Beatles proper. I believe we should use that as a precedent. freshacconcispeaktome 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Well, first, the onus is on you to provide a reason why it should included"

As I have already said two times, the band toured and recorded new material as "The Byrds". That, coupled with the legal ruling that any unit not containing the members who toured in 1990 as "The Byrds" could not use the Byrds name, should be reason enough to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.244.228 (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. We should wait for other editors to weigh in, however. And I need to find some information about policies and guidelines for infoboxes, about what is acceptable. freshacconcispeaktome 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be amended to read something like "1964-1973, reunion 1989-1990", comparable to the Cream article.63.199.244.228 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that IP User: 68.34.1.0 has attempted to extend The Byrds' reunion period to 1991, obviously feeling that the induction into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame should be counted as part of the reunion. I'm not sure whether I agree with this change or not and so I'm seeking consensus. I'm going to assume that we all agree that the McGuinn, Crosby, and Hillman reformation does indeed count as a bona fide reunion...I know I certainly do. That being the case, it's the actual year span of this reunion that we need to thrash out.

McGuinn, Crosby, and Hillman played their first reunion gig together in June 1988, but they were billed under their individual names, rather than as The Byrds. However, they did play a number of Byrds songs together during the performance and this was certainly the gig that inaugurated The Byrds' reunion proper. Throughout 1989 and 1990 the trio made more concert appearances billed as The Byrds, to strengthen their legal claim to the band name, and they also recorded four new songs as The Byrds. There were no concerts by the McGuinn/Crosby/Hillman line-up of The Byrds in 1991.

However, the original five members were inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame in January 1991 and they performed a short set consisting of "Mr. Tambourine Man", "Turn! Turn! Turn!" and "I'll Feel a Whole Lot Better". The question is, do we count this—or the 1988 gig for that matter—as part of The Byrds' reunion. Myself, I'm inclined not to count the R&R Hall of Fame for several reasons: the five Byrds were only in the same room together as a result of the award ceremony; they only played together on stage briefly; the legal action that necessitated the 1988-1990 reunion had been dropped by this time; and tellingly, there were no further plans to perform together after this occasion. It's a tricky one though; I could be persuaded that the R&R Hall of fame induction does count. Anyone got any thoughts on this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Following my above post, I've been thinking about this further and actually, I'm inclined to extend the reunion year span to 1991 to include the R&R Hall Of Fame show. The article lead states that this was the last time all five original members performed together, which is absolutely true, so I think that it makes sense to reflect this in the infobox and the later section dealing with the reunion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have once again revised the time span of The Byrds second reunion. I have changed the first year of the reunion back to 1989 instead of 1988 because, as my earlier comments indicate, McGuinn, Hillman and Crosby weren't actually billed as The Byrds for their on-stage reunion in June 1988. While I personally still do consider this to be the start of The Byrds reunion, it probably shouldn't be counted, since it wasn't actually a bona fide Byrds gig. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw The Byrds live in something like 1997 somewhere in Southern Colorado (Pueblo, maybe?). I realize there is controversy over which versions of the band are legit, but I find it odd that this era isn't even mentioned in the entire wiki article. There was clearly a band touring, calling themselves The Byrds and playing Byrds songs in the mid-to-late 90's. This was not 1993 or 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.9.8.66 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The ersatz version of the Byrds that you refer to are mentioned in the article -- at length, actually, especially during the 1985 - 1993 period in which either Gene Clark or Micheal Clarke were in this version of the band. However, I agree that it should be added to the article that this "fake" version of the band, featuring Terry Jones Rogers and Jerry Sorn among others, continued to perform throughout the 1990s, until David Crosby legally acquired the band's name in the early 2000s. Let me find some good references for this and I'll add it in the next day or two. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Renamed from what?

In the Folk Rock section it says, "the band signed to Columbia Records and a few days later renamed themselves The Byrds."

What were they renamed from? Ganymede 901 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Formed in Los Angeles in 1964. They were briefly known as "The Jet Set" and then "The Beefeaters".Kierzek (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They also tried out various spellings of the sound 'birds' - including the clunky 'Burds' - before settling on The Byrds. 71.194.38.54 (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Genres

I'd like to point out that the actual section headings indicate that they were pioneers of the various genres of psychedelia, country rock, etc. and the sections discuss it with sources. Therefore, the intro rightly states that they helped pioneer those genres. I fixed the lede to de-emphasize The Byrds "inventing" folk-rock, but rather helping to pioneer it. freshacconci talktalk 10:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to support the "un-pioneering" version. A lead-in should avoid that sort of description/wording. If it is in the article main body then it can be detailed there. But the lead should be more neutral. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think the original dispute was around the idea that they were involved with the other genres as well. The way it reads now at least mentions that, so I'll leave it at that. freshacconci talktalk 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to offer my two-pence worth. Two things; As I've stated on my edit notes on the History page, the Byrds initially played folk-rock, it was only later that they moved into other areas and I feel that's an important fact to make the reader aware of in the introduction. Secondly, I think that the list of sub-genres that they dabbled in during their career (space rock, psychedelic rock, country rock) is important and should be kept but the band DID NOT dabble in jangle pop. Jangle pop is a genre from the 1980s that The Byrds were hugely influential on, but they didn't contribute to this genre directly. I think the wording needs to indicate that they were an influence on jangle pop - from that point of view, saying that they "helped pioneer" the listed sub-genres (as Freshacconci wanted to do) is more accurate. Kohoutek1138 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of edits to Parsons-Sweethearts paragraph

I changed several of the sentences in this paragraph because of syntax problems and a related issue (poor juxtaposition resulting from otherwise acceptable syntax). Regarding the juxtaposition, the sentences on Parsons refusing to play South Africa and his legal problems were written in such a way that it sounded as if there was a link between the two. The use of "Subsequently", which usually means "as a result", at the beginning of the second sentence reinforced this. The Sweethearts sentence posed a different problem: McGuinn's and Hillman's singing replaced Parsons' lead vocals, but the sentence said the album was released "with Parsons' lead vocals replaced by either McGuinn or Hillman." In this case, the names of the latter singers should be possessives, since neither one actually replaced the vocals. The possessives were weak, so I tried to turn the second half of the sentence around and still retain the sense of it (historical loss). I also replaced the weasel word "arguably" in the closing parenthetical with the adverb/verb "often credited" which alludes to those who argue this without settling the dispute. And one last syntax issue, the end of the parenthetical had to be changed because it sounded as if Parsons had legal problems with The Byrds. I wanted to explain these edits because I realized the problems were somewhat subtle and the need for revision might not be understood. Allreet (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Made two very small edits to your changes. Firstly, I inserted an indication that "many" of Parsons' lead vocals were changed, in order to illustrate that not all of them were (You're Still On My Mind, Hickory Wind and Life In Prison still survive on the album). The way it read before it sounded as if McGuinn & Hillman had replaced all of parsons' vocals. The Second edit I made was just to make a long sentence flow better (I changed "that featured" to "as well as" in the sentance about the songs that appeared on the album). Kohoutek1138 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kohoutek1138. "Every writer needs an editor." In revising this without having the sources at hand, I took into account the possibility that not all of Parsons' vocals were replaced and pretty much stuck with what was here. Now what I'd like to know is was it "most" or "a few"? "Many" is equally imprecise but sounds odd, perhaps because it begs the questions "how many?" and "and were there really that many to begin with?" The other choices might help squelch that. As for "as well as", this should not be used as "and". Fix as you see fit. Allreet (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good point..."Many" is still a bit imprecise. OK, lets work this out - of the 11 tracks that ended up on "Sweetheart", originally 6 were supposed to have Gram Parsons' lead vocals but 3 were replaced with either McGuinn or Hillman. So, it's exactly half of Parson's vocals that were erased. As for your other point, I'll change it to "and" then...that still works. How come "as well as" isn't allowed? Is it a wiki rule or something? Kohoutek1138 01:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to qualify (by quantifying) the issue, for example, "three of the six songs recorded with Parsons' lead vocals were replaced", though it takes some linguistic acrobatics to weave in McGuinn and Hillman. One alternative to consider is breaking this into two sentences, but whatever works should rule. As for "as well as," it's a grammar issue. The phrase is a conjunction meaning "in addition to", either of which gives the writer the flexibility to run a series of things, then tack on something else. While it can be used to replace "and" in certain cases to give a couplet a different slant ("he was strong as well as agile"), it shouldn't be applied as a synonym for "and" in a series of three or more items. Allreet (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the phrase "as well as". With regard to three of the six planned Parsons' vocals being replaced, I've had a crack at altering the sentance. I think it's OK but see what you think. Kohoutek1138 01:46, 03 July 2009 (UTC)

release date of Mr. Tambourine Man single is incorrect

The half-sentence "Mr. Tambourine Man was released in June 1965, after a long delay..." is definitely incorrect. For example, the Billboard Hot 100 chart for the week ending May 8, 1965 lists it as Bubbling Under at position #114. The separate Wikipedia articles on the song and on the album both say the Byrds single was released April 12.

The sentence is referring to the single, not the album, since the next sentence says "At the same time, The Byrds' debut album Mr. Tambourine Man was released".

Note: I don't have any other source than those Wikipedia articles for the April 12 date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.217.153 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted! You're absolutely correct, the single was released on April 12, 1965 in the U.S. - in fact, by June 1965 it had topped the Billboard Hot 100. I have now corrected this information in the article and added an inline reference to support this revised release date. Thanks again for pointing this inaccuracy out. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

John Guerin

I have removed John Guerin from the "former members" field of the infobox and from the "Members" section of the main article. I realise that this might be controversial with some editors, but I don't believe that Guerin can be considered a bona fide member of the band in the same way as the other individuals that are listed can. Yes, Guerin was recruited as the band's drummer for live concert appearances, following Gene Parsons' departure from the group. However, he was never considered a official member of The Byrds and instead worked for a standard session musician's rate (as stated in Johnny Rogan's biography of The Byrds, Timeless Flight, and Christopher Hjort's Byrds Day-by-Day book). His non-official status within the band is further reinforced by the fact that while he was with The Byrds, Guerin continued to work as an in-demand L.A. session player. Also worth mentioning is the fact that Guerin never appeared on any of the group's album or single releases. In fact, he only appears on three officially released Byrds' recordings: the covers of "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" featured on the Banjoman soundtrack album and an outtake version of "Bag Full of Money" found on the expanded CD version of Farther Along.

To me, listing Geurin as a member of the band is misleading. If we are going to include him as an official band member, then why not the other two drummers who sat in with The Byrds in late 1972 and early 1973, Joe Lala and Dennis Dragon? A case could also be made for adding the band's roadie and sometimes percussionist Jimmi Seiter to the list. Hell, why not include Doug Dillard too, since he augmented the band's live line-up during 1968. For that matter, what about Stan Lynch and John Jorgenson, who both played alongside McGuinn, Crosby, and Hillman during the 1988 - 1990 Byrds reunion? Obviously, listing all of these ancillary musicians as fully fledged band members would be silly, but I maintain that including John Geurin is no different.

However, I would say that I think that both Geurin and Jimmi Sieter should still remain listed on The Byrds navigation template, since both of them recorded with performed live with the band while the group were an ongoing concern. So, does anybody have any thoughts or strong opinions about what I've said here? Comments are most welcome. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary False Byrds

The following was excised from the Michael Clarke (musician) page, relating to the later and contemporary actions of his "false Byrds" group. I am wondering if any of this (with better referencing) should be on the Byrds page, to demonstrate that there are still ongoing problems with people claiming a Byrds association:

"Uncredited, Byrds Featuring Michael Clarke: Biography, Discography and Family Tree; www.starclustermusic.de. An image of "The Byrds, featuring Michael Clarke" is accessible here; www.terryjonesrogers.com. Terry Jones Rogers was one of the new musicians invited by Michael Clarke to participate in Clarke's "Byrds project" between 1987 and 1993. Rogers has continued to perform Byrds songs as "Younger Than Yesterday" as of 2002. Between 1994 and 2002, he performed as "The Byrds Celebration", at various points including Skip Battin and Gene Parsons, the latter of whom had also played with Roger McGuinn in later versions of The Byrds. Rogers ceased using "The Byrds Celebration" name after David Crosby acquired The Byrds trademark in 2002, though Younger Than Yesterday continues to be self-described as "featuring former members of The Byrds".

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that John York is doing something similar with former "false Byrds" member Billy Darnell, as "Byrds and beyond":

John York "Notes"

When Younger Than Yesterday now says that the band features "former members of The Byrds"--in effect, they are saying that the band contains former members of Michael Clarke's false Byrds--yes?

I suggest that these developments merit consideration for article inclusion (or as a footnote to the principal article), to demonstrate continuing damage to the goodwill of the band name.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Current Ownership of Byrds Name and How Acquired

I have encountered weak references to the effect that David Crosby acquired the trademark to The Byrds name in 2002. Did he acquire this from the estate of Michael Clarke (where Roger McGuinn acknowledged that ownership logically rested) or through some other means? Also, how could the name have later been trademarked when McGuinn had earlier tried, and failed, to trademark the name? Is this the definitive Byrds logo from the earlier albums (such as Fifth Dimension) that has been trademarked? I suggest that this merits greater discussion in the principal article.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not the psychedelic, paisley logo from the Fifth Dimension album cover but the name itself. I am currently working my way through this article expanding information where nessacary, rewording for accuracy and adding reliable inline references to support the text. I'm currently working on the "Country rock" section, so the "Reunions" part is next on my list, and I will be addressing the Byrds vs. Byrds legal strife when I get to that section. As for Crosby owning the name since 2002, that's something that I've only recently heard about and will need to find reliable references if indeed it is true. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:706149

--CactusBot (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorted - I removed it since there are other inline citations for the same sentence that serve just as well. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

'The Troubadour'

When I read the sidepanel quote on how they met on the Troubadour staircase, as a UK and London resident I immediately assumed this to be 1950's 'The Troubadour' coffe-house and folk-club cellar in Earl's Court, London (still just about with us) - birthplace of many folk and protest singers including Bob Dylan. Reading the text I eventually discovered there was a venue of this name in Los Angeles. For any UK reader this is *very* confusing, and could perhaps be made clearer sooner. I wonder if one was named after the other?

217.39.14.164 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've edited it accordingly. As the editor who originally added that sidepanel, I hadn't expected it to seem so confusing but I think you make a good point, so thanks for your comment. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead Vocals in Discography.

Please, post information of who sang lead vocals music by music, album by album. Much fans dont know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.96.84 (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to this message on the discography talk page. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Byrds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found and tagged.[1] And fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, with good prose style and flow, complies with key MoS guidelines.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Two dead links, probably as a result of websites being reorganised. I found and updated the links. Sources support statements, appear to be RS, no evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Comprehensive and focussed, without digressions into unnecessary trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images and sound samples check out.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An interesting, comprehensive, well written and researched article that is clearly at GA status, so I have no hesitation in listing it. If you wish to take this further you may need to search out some more free use images as FAC appears to discourage use of non-free. I noticed when checking the article history that the primary contributor was not the nominator. The nominator appears to have made only one recent edit to the article in fact. It is to User:Kohoutek1138 that kudos should go. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposed copy-vio

User:P. S. Burton recently placed a copyvio tag on the article. I found no evidence of copy-vios when reviewing for GA. I have invited User:P. S. Burton to specify what they believe to be an infringement. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The following has been transcluded from P. S. Burton's talk page because it's probably best to hold the discussion here...

Hi, would you care to specify what you believe to be non-free material in the article? I recently passed this for GA and found no copy-vios. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is not the text (which is very good and indeed of GA quality) but the excessive use of non-free sounds and images. Have a look a e.g. The Beatles for guidance. Right now their is too much non-free media for one article. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that as far as FAC would be concerned, but there is no GA criteria on this. I think a copy-vio tag may not be quite the thing. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disruptive, and by no means do I want to destroy such a nice article. However, regardless of FAC and GA, excessive use of non-free material is generally discouraged. Please see WP:FAIRUSE. Cheers. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As the main editor who worked to get The Byrds article up to GA standard, I'm failing to see the problem here. There are no actual copy-vios in this article, as borne out by the fact that it passed on that critera during the recent GA review. If user P. S. Burton believes that there is excessive use of non-free sounds and images, then that's fair enough and he's welcome to his opinion, but I would point out that, in fact, the Wikipedia policy regarding excessive use of non-free media files (as detailed at WP:FAIRUSE) is pretty vague. Listed under the banner of unacceptable use it says, "Excessive quantities of short audio clips in a single article. A small number may be appropriate if each is accompanied by commentary in the accompanying text." I have gone out of my way to add audio clips only when they will genuinely illustrate or reinforce something detailed in the text...most notably stylistic examples of The Byrds' music at various stages of their career.

Likewise, with non-free images, I have used them only when they genuinely illustrate something discussed in the text and no free alternative exists. I would also point out that every non-free image or sound file in the article strictly meets the usage criteria listed at WP:FAIRUSE, WP:ICT/FU, WP:IUP and WP:CMF...I'm always very careful about that.

In addition to my above points, I have to agree with Jezhotwells that slapping a copy-vio tag on the article may not be quite the proper thing to do, given that there are no actual copy-vios per se and it recently passed that part of a GA review. As an aside, I have transcluded this conversation to Talk: The Byrds and would suggest that we continue it there in case other interested editors want to pitch in with their opinions. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as I believe it to have been inappropriately placed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Non free images

Hi, there is a discussion about the use of non-free images in the article at WT:Non-free content#Article passing GA with serious non-free issues. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has been archived here now: WT:Non-free_content/Archive_54#Article_passing_GA_with_serious_non-free_issues. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable influence for consideration

This is not mentioned in the entry - and perhaps rightfully so - but Simon & Garfunkel's recording of Sounds of Silence was given the "Byrds" treatment and re-released after Tambourine Man's success. I don't remember the source at this time, but I read about this and found it interesting. The tune was taken in and stripped of Paul's guitar and electric instruments were added so Columbia could further cash in on the Byrd's success with Tambourine Man. Should this be added in to further demonstrate the single's/band's influence on music at that time?THX1136 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about "Sounds of Silence" and in fact, I've read that Paul Simon actually approached Roger McGuinn and The Byrds' manager, Jim Dickson, backstage at the Monterey Pop Festival to say "thank you" for their influence and how much it helped in Simon & Garfunkel's own success. However, there were an awful lot of acts who had hits with jangly, Byrdsy, folk rock songs in 1965 and 1966, in the wake of "Mr. Tambourine Man"'s success. The article says...

"Within three months "Mr. Tambourine Man" had become the first folk rock smash hit, reaching number 1 on both the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart and the UK Singles Chart. The single's success initiated the folk rock boom of 1965 and 1966, during which a number of Byrds-influenced acts had hits on the American and British charts."

I think getting into detail about individual folk rock records that were influenced by "Mr. Tambourine Man" is beyond the scope of this article. It would be better addressed in the article for "Mr. Tambourine Man" (which it is, actually - see here) or in the article for "Sounds of Silence" or whatever other songs were influenced by the song. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Folk vs psychedelic

Well, I realize that this article is relatively well-written and well-sourced, so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't really change. That said, I'm not really sure that parts of it are well organized, so here goes:

Well, first of all it's a little odd that first there's a "folk rock (1965-1966)" section, and then a "psychedelia (1965-1967)" section, even though the "folk" section basically seems to cover most of 1965 chronologically and "psychedelia" seems to go from the tail end of 1965 to early 1968 chronologically, so the text doesn't seem to match up well with the section titles. Also, what it implies about the development of genre in the band over time seems somewhat inaccurate.

It's true that the two 1965 albums were basically folk rock in nature, in a way that's somewhat homogeneous compared to what happened later, and that the 1966 & 1967 productions are more eclectic. However, that's not the same as saying that the folk rock period was followed by a psychedelic period. I think it would be more correct to call it an eclectic period. First of all, not all of the non-folk-rock influence was psychedelic. There was raga rock & jazz influence, with the Byrds at times showing some similarity to Shankar or Coltrane. Also, while the folk rock influence became less dominate, it did not simply go away. There are two traditional songs on "Fifth Dimension", for example, ("Wild Mountain Thyme" and "John Riley"), which is as many as there were on "Mr. Tambourine Man". (Plus, there's another traditional song, "I Know My Rider", included on the "Fifth Dimension" CD.) "Younger than Yesterday" also has "Renaissance Fair", which is reminiscent of a folk festival, and "My Back Pages", a folk composition by Dylan. So although other stuff was getting in, in 1966-67, the folk stuff was still there to some extent, at least.

Also, while there might have been some psychedelic influence, in part since the Byrds like everyone else were listening to the Beatles who were going psychedelic at that time, I think it would be easy to over-estimate this element. Maybe they didn't totally reject psychedelic influence, but I'm not sure it dominated their work, even in 66-67. Like the article says, the idea that "Eight Miles High" was about drugs was simply a misconception born of the fact that people were expecting to find drug songs everywhere at that period. It's about a trip to another country, by air, with the end of the song imitating the sound and feeling of an airplane landing. To be psychedelic, it would have to be about drugs or an altered state of consciousness, but it's really not. It's just about going to another place and thinking deep thoughts about the nature of people. I don't think that "Fifth Dimension" is really a psychedelic album, compared to unambiguously psychedelic albums like "Sgt. Pepper" or "Mr. Fantasy". McCartney point-blank called "Sgt. Pepper" a "drug album", and "Mr. Fantasy" has among other things, a song about a drug dealer ("Dealer") and multiple tracks almost certainly informed by an altered state of consciousness. "Fifth Dimension", on the other hand, isn't really dominated by psychedelia, since it's eclectic, containing folk, Indian, and jazz influences, as well as some of the psychedelic influence that was ubiquitous at the time.... "Younger Than Yesterday" also isn't dominated by psychedelia, with the lead single "So You Want To Be A Rock 'n' Star" in particular being rather straight-ahead at least in the sense of being un-psychedelic. The psychedelic influence probably peaked in early 1968 (ironically after the "psychedelia (1965-67)" of the article's current revision) with "The Notorious Byrd Brothers", which seems to have been intended to be, for lack of a better description, pretty far out and weird. (And incidentally everything after the entry of Gram Parsons into the group was pretty solidly in the country rock camp, I think.... They actually did country rock for a rather long time, although incidentally they never really got the positive feedback they got during the folk/eclectic period. At least to the extent that albums 5-12 sold so poorly that they are all difficult to find, and that the material from 1965-1967 & that from 1968-1973 are both given roughly equal amounts of space on the "Essential Byrds" compilation which means the latter period had to be edited far more severely, even for a project that's intentionally inclusive of both sides. Obviously alot of that has as much to do with the B-side Byrds never becoming as famous as the original lineup, but, whatever. Their popularity peaked very close to the beginning, but they did conserve much of their support as they drew on more diverse influences, it's just when they tried to become a completely different band altogether in terms of both style and personnel that it more or less fell apart for them.... That was actually a tangent, but whatever.) But if I had to choose only one (sub-)genre description for any of the first four albums, I'd pick "folk rock".

Anyway, my basic suggestion is that we rename the "psychedelia" section the "eclectic" period, instead. We might also want to change the part called "Line up changes (1967-1968)", since implying that the Byrds only experienced line-up changes during that period is a little misleading. We could however either call it the "transition" period, when the original line-up was wiped away, or simply incorporate it into the proposed "eclectic" section, since although the psychedelic influence is pretty strong on "The Notorious Byrd Brothers", I don't think it's uniformly spread over all of it. (e.g. the "moog raga" bonus track on the CD.)

I realize that these are mostly organizational changes that I want, but I would be happy if we could talk about it, because I think that the organization is very suggestive of what the article says as a whole. Knightofcups89 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

One other thing: there's some sort of random link showing up here, but I didn't put it there, and I can't see it on the edit page. Strange. Knightofcups89 (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The section headings are almost entirely for ease of navigation and therefore refer to the basic stylistic traits of the Byrds' music at a given time. As outlined in the Manuel of Style (at WP:MOS), section headings "should be a recognizable description of the topic that is sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles." In short, they are meant to be accurate, but not necessarily totally inclusive. For example, although the Byrds clearly recorded songs in the folk rock style well beyond 1966, it is the 1965-1966 period of their career that is most closely associated with the sub-genre. Likewise, the late 1965 to mid-1968 time span is more accurately described as their psychedelic period and so on. The varying musical styles on albums such as Younger Than Yesterday that you mention are covered in detail and in short in the articles for those albums and in a somewhat less detailed form within this main Byrds article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I have removed the hyperlink that was appearing at the bottom of the page. Strange indeed. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I mean it doesn't really surprise me that I'm not getting a consensus here since it's a complicated topic, but thanks for the attention at least and for removing that weird link. Anyway, maybe it would be more feasible if I suggested a more minor tweak than a larger re-organization: we could at least modify the dates of the 'psychedelic' period to include 1968 as the latter limit, since the early 1968 album 'The Notorious Byrd Brothers' seems actually more psychedelic-influenced than the previous ones (the album's Wikipedia article also calls it psychedelic). Also, 1966 would be for me a better start date for that, since "Eight Miles High" is I think the first Byrds song that has even been considered psychedelic, and the two 1965 works are folk-rock in a more or less straight-forward way compared to the more eclectic style they acquired later (also the Wikipedia articles for those two albums do not call them psychedelic). I guess maybe your idea was that they had started recording "Eight Miles High" which has at least been called psychedelic by the end of 1965, although the album article on this site seems to a little contradictory as to whether recording started in December 1965 (which it says in the main article) or January 1966 (as per the info box). But anyway, I think that if we have to divide part of the article into a 'psychedelic' period, that 1966-1968 (or 1965-1968) would be better than 65-67. Although I do realize this is not the biggest deal and that it would be much less than a disaster if this does not happen, since it's already at the very least a rather good article and indeed a "good article" as officially defined. But I just thought I'd offer that for consideration anyway. Knightofcups89 (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Byrds' psychedelic period ended in December 1967, when work was completed on the final track for The Notorious Byrd Brothers album. Although that LP was released in early 1968, the dates in the section headings refer to the band's musical activities at those times, not to record company release dates -- especially since those varied considerably from country to country during the '60s (was Turn! Turn! Turn! a 1965 or a 1966 release? Well, it depends on which country you lived in). Likewise, as you say, "Eight Miles High" was initially recorded in December 1965 and, in fact, written in November 1965, although the version that was released as a single and included on the Fifth Dimension album was cut in January 1966. Still, the point is that The Byrds' psychedelic phase began in late 1965, when they wrote and recorded "Eight Miles High". The December 1965 recording of "Eight Miles High" wasn't issued at the time and that's why the recording dates in the Fifth Dimension album infobox begin in January 1966. Hope that explains things a little. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Membership timeline

The recent edits involving the timeline have been more about style. The content is not in question. I changed the membership timeline to be ordered both chronologically and by instrument. This is how it looks on many other band articles and it makes it easier to follow the evolution of a band when there were substantial lineup changes (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Sabbath_members#Timeline for example). Somebody else changed the colors and size around and I agree with those changes because the way it is looks weird. I have never seen black used to represent an instrument. I think it should be colored in the style that you see on other wiki articles with a timeline. That person also added the reunion lineups and extended it all the way to the 1990's but that's another discussion if you ask me. Kaiserwil (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The membership timeline was already ordered chronologically, with each band member listed in the order that they joined the Byrds. Likewise, the instruments are ordered based on that chronological membership order, with "vocals" being the exception. For example, Roger McGuinn and Gene Clark came together to form a duo in 1964 and their respective main instrumental roles in the Byrds were lead guitar and tambourine. Then David Crosby joined the pair to form the Jet Set and his main instrumental role in the group was rhythm guitar. So that is why, after vocals, the first three instruments listed are "lead guitar", "tambourine" and "rhythm guitar". This alignment of instruments with the membership chronology makes the timeline all the easier to understand for a new reader, I believe.

As for the colours used in the timeline, that's purely a subjective aesthetic concern and so isn't really relevant. Likewise, what other band membership timelines on Wikipedia look like is not really of any importance, as per the guidelines laid out at WP:OSE. Saying that things are done in a particular way elsewhere on Wikipedia and that's therefore a reason to copy them may be valid in some contexts, but not in others (unless there are hard and fast rules set out in the relevant Wikipedia manuals of style, of course). Since the colour assigned to individual instruments is purely a subjective choice and has no real bearing on how easy or not it is for a reader to understand the information being presented, I believe this is a case where other timelines are largely irrelevant.

As for extending the range of the timeline, I think we can both agree that the main lifespan of the Byrds was 1964-1973. The 1989-91 reunion was a fairly unproductive period, with the reformed group only playing a handful of gigs, appearing at their Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction, and recording four new songs for the 1991 box set. Likewise, the 2000 reunion was just a one-off charity gig appearance. These clearly constitute bona fide reunions, but I personally don't believe that they were substantial enough to require inclusion in the timeline.

I have no problem with making the timeline bigger though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Weird reference to non-existent meter change

I'm wondering why the article claims that the Byrds changed the meter of Mr. Tambourine Man from 2/4 to 4/4. What's the sourcing on this, and what meaning does it have? The original is in no sense a two-step feel. It's always possible to interpret any duple rhythm as either 2/4 or 4/4, but there's nothing about Dylan's recording that strongly suggests 2/4, and in fact the vocal phrasing and guitar part strongly suggest more of a 4/4 chunking (nothing fits snugly inside two beats as a unit, everything seems to be laid out in at least 4 beat segments). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Hymes (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, Dylan's version of MTM definitely doesn't have that polka, two-step feel, but to my ears the guitar accompaniment is in that "skipping" 2/4 folk time signature that was, and probably still is, relatively common among folk artists. Regardless of my opinion though, the sources for Dylan's original being in 2/4 time in the article include Johnny Rogan's definitive Byrds biography Timeless Flyte and Toby Creswell's 1001 Songs. Additionally, pop music historian Richie Unterberger states that Dylan's original was in 2/4 here and even the official website of Roger McGuinn (the Byrds' lead guitarist) states as much here. Since the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability, this should definitely remain in the article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

source of their name?

I think that where their name comes from should be in the intro. Was it after Charlie Parker or what? 18:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk • contribs)