Talk:The Byrds/Archive 2

Click here to create next archive

Timeline

Personally, I believe instead of having lines to mark lineup changes, like on the current timeline, they should mark album releases, like most other timelines on Wikipedia do. It would be much less confusing, and probably look better aesthetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkysilverfish (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly see the logic in having the band's 12 studio albums represented on the timeline by thick vertical lines, but the lines that are currently there are not simply for decoration: they aid visual understanding of the band's complex membership -- especially if those changes in personnel occurred fairly close together. Take, for example, Gram Parsons leaving the band and Clarence White joining. The gap between the two events is small, but it wasn't a seemless change over, and the existing vertical lines help to clarify that, I believe.

The other thing about adding markers for the release of the Byrds' albums is that, very often, the release date bears little or no relation to when band members came and went. For example, during the making of The Notorious Byrd Brothers, David Crosby was fired, Gene Clark rejoined for two weeks and then left again, and Michael Clarke stopped participating in studio sessions, but stayed in the band, and was then fired. All three of those musicians are on the Notorious album, but they were all long gone from the Byrds by the time the album was released. Likewise, by the time the Sweetheart of the Rodeo album was released, the Byrds lineup consisted of Roger McGuinn, Hillman, White and Gene Parsons -- only two of those members were actually on the Sweetheart album. So, I question how marking the album releases helps a reader of the Wikipedia article to understand how and when the band's membership changed. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Zabboo wants to change the colours, period covered, and position of the vertical lines on the article membership timeline, while ignoring the "Please discuss on the talk page" hatnote in position in this section.

As I noted above, the vertical lines that are currently shown on the timeline are not album release dates and they are not there simply for decoration: they aid visual understanding of the band's complex membership history by corresponding with personnel changes -- particularly in instances where these changes occurred fairly close together. These vertical lines are intended to help a reader of the article understand how and when the band's membership changed; I fail to see how marking the band's album release dates with vertical lines does this?

As for the colour scheme, as far as I'm aware there is no standardised colour scheme that should be used across all membership timelines. The colours used are a purely aesthetic concern and so I see no compelling reason to change them. 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.

The other thing about the timeine and the periods covered is that, as stated in the heading, the timeline covers the period 1964-1973, which is the longest and most significant period that the band were together for. It is also by far the most convoluted period, in terms of membership changes, which is why a graphical representation of the membership history is useful. For clarity, the timeline stretches from 1st January 1964 to the 1st January 1974 and therefore shows the whole period that the Byrds were originally together. I see no reason to extend the timeline or change its start or finish dates.

Lastly, the instruments that the members of the Byrds played, as listed in the Personnel sub-section, are all sourced and are instruments that the band members regularly played at various times during the band's recording history -- not simply instruments they played once. I am waiting for a justification as to why many of these should be deleted from the article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "enduring songs" list from article lead & RnR Hall of Fame mention.

User Ilovetopaint has suggested in their recent edit summaries that the list of "most enduring songs" in the article lead is arbitrary and that the mention of the band's induction into the RnR Hall of Fame "has no significance". On the latter point, I strongly disagree, since the Hall of Fame induction is significant in itself and doubly significant for being the last time that the five original members of the group performed together.

As for the list of "most enduring songs" being rbitrary, I again disagree, since every song listed is singled out within the main body of the article itself as a composition that was either very popular/successful at the time of its release or has become a "rock standard" in the intervening years (all backed up with reliable third-party refs, of course).

However, while I don't believe this list is "arbitrary", I can certainly see some logic to deleting it, but for the reason that it is perhaps unnecessary information to impart to the casual reader (who will likely only read the article lead anyway). That said, other Good Articles or Featured Articles for similarly popular bands of the era, such as the Rolling Stones or The Beach Boys do mention significant albums or singles in their lead sections, and I personally think such information is relevant to a casual understanding of the subject. So, I'm kinda torn on whether listing the Byrds' "most enduring songs" is useful or not. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I said the month of their induction was insignificant, not the induction itself. As for the list of songs, "most enduring" is a subjective qualifier. When the Beach Boys' lead mentions Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations", it's to recognize that they "vaulted the group to the top level of rock innovators and established the band as symbols of the nascent counterculture era." When the lead mentions that the band was at the forefront of the California Sound, it doesn't go on to list every major surf hit they ever released. Other than "Mr. Tambourine Man", "Eight Miles High", and "Turn, Turn, Turn" I'm not aware of any single Byrds album or song that "cemented" the group's cultural significance, so to speak. This is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Looking through what the article body has to say about "Ballad of Easy Rider" and "Chestnut Marie" - the first was written for the movie of the same name, and the last was a single that peaked at No. 121. This selection is as arbitrary as I suspected. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit because we (and possibly other wikipedians) haven't reached any kind of consensus on this discussion yet and, also, because your recent edit introduces yet more elements into the article that I, for one, disagree with. Please refrain from making further edits to this article until we have an editor consensus on any proposed changes.

Firstly, regarding the band's induction into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of fame, why not list the month it occurred in? Let's be accurate here. I admit that specifying the exact date is probably overkill, but adding the month is simply to be more accurate. Why does the removal of one accurate word have any kind of bearing on the quality of the lead?

MOS:LEAD (emphasis added): "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." It makes no difference if they were inducted in January, March, or November.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Secondly, I repeat that the "enduring songs" list is not arbitrary at all; in the case of the two songs you cite above, "Ballad of Easy Rider" was the theme song of a culturally significant, landmark counterculture film that was extremely successful all across the world, and "Chestnut Mare", while peaking at only #121 in the U.S., was a staple of FM radio in American in the 60s and 70s (as stated in the "Chestnut Mare" article) and it was also a top 20 hit in the UK (as noted in the article). As such, I think it's clear that labeling these two songs as "among the bands most enduring" is neither inaccurate nor arbitrary. As I said earlier, I'm not dead set against removing this list of songs, but I reject the suggestion that the list is arbitrary.

Thirdly, calling songs "enduring", when the article and other relevant Wikipedia articles clearly provide proof of this, is not a peacock term. Calling these songs "incredible" or "brilliant" would constitute a peacock term. Calling them "enduring" does not.

Songs do not have a lifespan. They cannot "endure" anything. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Fourth and finally, calling McGuinn by his birth name of Jim (James) -- which is the name he went by during the early-to-mid '60s, and which the lead makes note of earlier -- is perfectly fine. There's no reason to change this to Roger McGuinn at all and, in fact, to do so is to be inaccurate, since that wasn't his name at the time.

A couple of other things I just want to mention are that, regarding the "four paragraphs" in the lead that MOS:LEAD suggests, this is nothing more than a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast rule. So let's not get hung up about shoehorning the existing text into four neat paragraphs...better to ignore all rules in this instance, I think. Also, please bear in mind that this Wikipedia article was reviewed, in more or less its current state, and designated as a Good Article back in 2011. While that obviously doesn't mean that it's perfect (and I've tinkered with it a fair bit myself since its GA review), it does mean that it already meets the GA criteria and is unlikely to have any glaring problems that need your urgent attention. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible solution: I've just been looking at the lead again and, if editor consensus is to drop the list of "enduring songs", the initial sentence of that paragraph ("The band's signature blend of clear harmony singing and...") could be inserted after the third sentence of the opening paragraph, between "...considered by critics to be one of the most influential bands of the 1960s" and "Initially, they pioneered...". This would eliminate the second paragraph entirely and reduce the overall paragraph count down to four, which User:ILoveToPaint deems desirable. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If you merged the last 2 paragraphs and dropped the ridiculous list, then it would provide more room for a paragraph detailing the Byrds's cultural and musical impact, which is much more than "one of their songs was featured in a movie with a cult following" and "one of their songs is frequently played on the radio". When you put trivial aspects in the lead, you paint a picture of a trivial band. That is why brevity is crucial. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that the Rolling Stones' article lead also puts every album in context: "the group returned to its "bluesy" roots with ...", "... is generally considered to be the band's best work", "... their most popular albums worldwide". Why can't this be done for the Byrds? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't care for the term "enduring" because it sounds like music journalism, and not an encyclopedia. What are we really saying? Most popular songs? Most written-about songs? Songs that still receive significant airplay? Well let's be more precise then and use sources so it's not an arbitrary list. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe change "enduring" to "best known", although the last two songs in the list would probably not qualify. They might be appropriately replaced with "Mr. Spaceman" although that has the disadvantage of essentially limiting the songs noted in the lede to their 1st 4 albums rather than spanning most of their career. While those are their albums with their most popular songs, a later album Sweetheart of the Rodeo is one of their most critically acclaimed albums and mention of that (and its role in originating country rock), along with their contribution to the Easy Rider soundtrack may be a suitable way to acknowledge the important aspects of their later career (which for better or worse was not their most popular). Rlendog (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if there's definitely a consensus to remove the list of "most enduring songs", which I was never wholly against, but I still maintain that, while it might be unencyclopedic, it's not an arbitrary list. But fair enough. I do like ILoveToPaint's idea of talking more about the stylistic changes that the band's albums represented, a la the Stones article and maybe, as Relendog suggests, mentioning their involvement in Easy Rider too. I still think listing January as the month of the bands induction in to the RnR HoF is worth doing, but it's not a deal breaker for me, so let's leave it off for a quiet life.

I'll have a crack at rewording the lede to reflect these suggestions and editor consensus later on today. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussion Spike Wilbury and Rlendog. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention removing the list. I suggested using a more precise term than "enduring" and then making sure the songs match the definition with citations to reliable sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. My mistake. Well, I've removed the song list, because I wasn't wholly committed to keeping it anyway (just not for the same reasons that ILoveToPaint cited), but if we decide on a better word than "enduring" and can find adequate citations, it can easily be re-added. Meanwhile, I've had a go at restructuring the article lede to reflect the discussion here. I'm not really sure that there's a critical consensus on what the Byrds' best album is, so I've refrained from getting into that in the lede. Hopefully my changes will be satisfactory. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Timeline Colors

Hi everyone I know this has been discussed by other users before but I want to request changing the timeline colors. It seems that changing them to the norm would help. I know the first time I used The Byrds' Wikipedia page I was confused by how the colors are different to almost every other Wikipedia page. EPBeatles (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no standardised colour scheme for membership timelines in band articles on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong about that, please do provide a link. My usual thinking on this matter is that the colours are a purely aesthetic concern and so I see no compelling reason to change them. 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.

Having said that, after checking a dozen or so random band's articles on Wikipedia, I can see that, actually, there does seem to be a form of colour standardisation across what would appear to be the majority of band articles. I wonder how this standard got established, unless, like i say, there is now some official Wiki guideline on it that I am unaware of.

I'm not that opposed to changing the colours used in the Byrds article, to be honest, but I'd be interested to see what other editors think (unless this is now a proper Wiki rule, in which case I'll go ahead and change it). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, kohoutek1138. Yeah I don't think it's been an official rule, but yeah a lot of band timelines share the same colors. I didn't mean to cause any trouble when I repeatedly changed them to the usual colors a few days ago (I didn't realize it would be a problem). Thanks again for considering! --EPBeatles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no problem about changing the colours -- there is a warning hatnote at the top of the Membership Timeline when you go to edit it, saying "Please discuss on the talk page before changing", but you must not have seen it. As I say, there does seem to be some kind of standardisation of timeline colours across the majority of band articles, so maybe the Byrds one should be changed, even if it's not an official rule. Let's wait a few days and see if any other editors weigh in with an opinion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, we've waited a while and nobody else seems to have a strong opinion one way or the other. As stated, I don't really have a problem with the colours used in the timeline, but there does seem to be some kind of unofficial standardisation of this across multiple Wiki band pages, so I'm gonna go ahead and change the timeline to the colour scheme that EPBeatles suggested. Hopefully that will stop the steady stream of editors who just seem to want to change the colours arbitrarily that we've seen over the past couple of years. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)