|
User talk:GloryRoad66/Archive 1Welcome!Hello, Garagepunk66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place Garagepunk66, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi Garagepunk66. With respect, I have reverted the changes you just made to your comment of 21:19, 27 October 2012 at Talk:Punk rock. You really shouldn't massively alter your original comment after other editors have already responded to it. Substantially altering a comment like this after it has been replied to deprives the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Instead, if you have new or additional points to make, please make them in a new comment below the existing replies. For more information, see WP:REDACT. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I should amend: Minor changes/fixes are OK, but please don't change the timestamp. Again, this confuses the chronological flow of the discussion, since it will appear that the replies were made before the original comment. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC) You're significantly altering your comment again. Please read WP:REDACT and don't do this. If you've got something new to add, add it as a new comment at the bottom of the thread. I'm trying to help you out here. It's important not to significantly alter your posts after people have already replied to them. Otherwise the conversation becomes very difficult to follow. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I just read your messages. I am new as a Wiki editor (very green). As a writer I love to edit and re-edit myself. I' will do it the way you recommend in the future. By the way, do they have a spell-check devise on the Wiki edits toolbar? It would eliminate the need for a lot of re-edits. If it doesn't, then perhaps you could could send a request for one up the line. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Made changes in "Origins" to correct factual inaccuracies and contradictions and put contents in lear chronological orderI made changes in "Origins" (History of punk subculture article) to correct factual inaccuracies and contradictions and put contents in lear chronological order. See my further comments in "Talk" section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 4Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of garage rock bands, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Outcasts and The Savages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, I noticed that when I put the names of many of newly included bands in double brackets, that this ended up causing many of them to go to other bands' Wiki articles, so, I removed the doulble brackets. When I get the time, I would like to create articles on a lot of these bands, but I want to make sure that the articles are carefully worded and researched. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC) What happened to "Garage Rock Revival" title? New Title Misleading (concerning "Post-Punk Revival" article)Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember this article being titled "Garage Rock Revival." As it stands, the title of the article is misleading in how it pertains to bands that are trying to revive the garage rock sound of the mid-60's. Such bands are certainly not trying to revive post punk. Post punk was not garage rock, but a movement that consisted of bands that came much later (after 70's punk), such as Public Image Limited, as well as the goth and no wave genres, etc. Garage rock can never be spoken of as either pre-punk or post-punk, because it was the original form of punk rock (for references and detailed discussion, please read my posts in talk sections of "Garage Rock," "Punk Rock," "Punk Subculture," and "History of Punk Subculture"), so all attempts to revivalize it must be treated as "punk" and/or "garage..." and nothing else. The title needs to be changed back to "Garage Rock Revival." There is still a Wiki article-link in the side box of the "Punk Rock" article that reads "Garage Rock Revival," but when you click onto it, you get something different that what was expected ("Post-Punk Revival", when it should read "Garage Rock Revival"). Please return the title of this article back to "Garage Rock Revival" (as it should be). New and seperate articles can be created for "Post Punk Revival," if there are any bands trying to revitalize that sound (i.e. PIL, goth, no wave, etc. or other revival genres. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC) "Etymology" section (of Wiki "Punk Rock" article) is vague and confusing, omits key information, does not make clear that garage rock was the first genre to be referred to as "punk rock"The "Etymology" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article is vague, omits key information, and does not make it clear enough that garage rock (1963-1967) was the first genre of music to be spoken of as "punk rock." It also omits the fact that Lenny Kaye (future member of Patti Smith Group) referred to it, as a whole genre, as "punk rock" in his original liner notes to the Nuggets compilation LP (Electra, 1972)[1] The Wiki "Etymology" section speaks as if the word "punk rock," was used arbitrarily by critics in the early 70's. This is false and innacurate. The critics knew exactly what they were referring to: garage rock of the mid-60's. In the early 70's certain inluential rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock. [2] [3] To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion: "...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." [4] Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread distribution (Electra). No doubt the previous Wiki editors have read the website, "Etymology of Punk (and the Developent of How the Term Came to be Used in Rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). But they have made a bad misreading of its contents. It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad, Springsteen, etc.). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands. The current "Etymology" secion of the "Punk Rock article in Wiki, badly misreads the intent of rock critics of the early to mid 70's and makes it seem as if the term "punk rock" was used arbitrarily by these critics, but it was not. There may have some been confusion about what constituted "punk" in terms of contemporary artists of the time, but here is absolutely no confusion about how it realted to the garage rock bands of the mid-60's, which were considered the foundation of the definition. In the article, "The Shakin' Street Punk Survey," by Metal Mike Saunders (that appeared in the "Shakin Street Gazette" Nov.7, 1974) Sauners speaks of the mid-70's punk movement in New York as a punk "revival" (not as a new thing called punk): "...the punk music revival is now in full swing.". [5] He also talks about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries." [6] Over a year and a half earlier, Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets had said: "Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) [7] A few years later, Shaw in review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976), describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (keep in mind that, at that time, they often did covers of old mid-60's songs, such as "Stepping Stone," by Paul Revere and the Raiders and "Substitute," by The Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon. But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton: "But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975) [8] Over and over, the rock critics are absolutely clear that they consider the garage rock to be the original (and touchstone) form of punk rock. However, the Wiki "Etymology" section of the "Punk Rock" article does not sufficiently reflect this. It only makes occasional references to these critics and makes their statements appear to be equivical. It does mention that Ed Sanders used the term, "punk rock," to describe the Fugs (in a 1970 article). But, Sanders remarks does not attempt to define a whole genre of music. It is likely that he is using the term "punk rock" in context of how it was probably being used colloquially at the time: to describe garage bands of the mid-60's and how the term could also be used to denote contemporaries who considered themselves to be following in the eccentric spirit of the garage bands. In all likleyhood, Sanders is using the term in exactly the same context as critics, such as Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, Mike Saunders, and Mick Houghton. After careful reading of what was said, time and time again, by influential rock critics 1971-1975, there can be absolutely no doubt that garage rock is the first genre of music to be referred to as "punk rock." The "Etymolgy" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article must be ammended to reflect this reality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Garagepunk66, thanks for providing us with all this info about history of the usage of the term "punk rock". I am also interested in the history of the term. As you probably know there is also the article, by Ed Sanders on March 22nd, 1970 in the Chicago Tribune. In this article, Sanders usage is dissimilar to the later usages 1971-beyond (which use punk rock to describe 60s garage rock) - he is describing his own music. I wonder if there has been any earlier uses found in published form, from early 1970, or earlier, or is it possible that the Sanders article is the first mention of the specific term, "punk rock". Also the link to the John Savage article above seems to be broken. Xsxex (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Garage rockI don't want to get into much further discussion over etymology, and who called what music "punk", and when, and so forth - simply because I don't think it's very necessary. But, I do agree with you very strongly that the "Peak of popularity" section of the Garage rock article, in particular, is pathetic at the moment. If you were to start expanding and developing that article - maybe by going into some detail about the various regional scenes, and identifying which bands were and are considered the most important in each - you would have my full support. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I want to thank you, as always, for your kind consideration. I know that I have been a "handfull" lately, but I have come to have the highest regards for your editorship. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Heading to Ramones article misleading: Ramones definitely not the first punk bandSee Ramones talk page for detailed discussion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I have now made the necesary change. The addition of the word "modern," makes the heading more factually precise and can no longer be considered misleading. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Band's name starts with "The..." (concerning The Shadows of Knight article)The name of this band starts with "The..." The proper name for them is "The Shadows of Knight." [9] See pictures of album covers and sleeves, etc. on Googe images. I have made the necessary correction in the heading, and in the text, but I don't know how to correct the article title. Perhaps one of the master editors can help me by correcting the band's name in the title of the article. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Language in overview needs to be more objective (in List of Garage and Psychedelic Compilations article)If I seem to be nit-picking, please don't get me wrong: I commend the writers of this article on so many things. You have done a wonderful job organizing an extensive list of compilations, and I am deeply grateful for that. And, I fully and passionately share your love and enthusiansm for the topic (keep in mind that this statement is coming from someone who has been faulted for being too passionate about this topic and going overboard in some of my other posts--the other editors have had to try to restrain me at times). So, you might find it surprising if I am having to play the role of "objectivity cop" here. I think we could modify some of the language in the overview, ever-so-slightly, to be more objecive (and more encyclopedic). In the first sentence we could change the word "staggering" to "extensive." The ending sentence, "As good as most of these albums are, the list of inventive names that have been devised for these compilation albums is a treat in itself..." is too opinionated and reads more like a record review. A better way to say the same thing would be: "These albums have been generally regarded as quality examples of their genres, and are also noted for their highly idiosyncratic titles." So, I think we could make this slight adjustment to an otherwise fine and helpful article. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC) I went in and made these changes, which I think will result in a better article. But, I have done so with great care and repect, to retain the meaning you wished to convey, but in more encycolpedic lanuage. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Talk page etiquettePlease be aware of WP:REDACT - you're not really supposed to remove your own comments from article talk pages, though I shouldn't think anyone is going to object in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC) OK, I spoke too soon! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Los IracundosHello Garagepunk66, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Los Iracundos for deletion, because it's not written in English. To request a translation, please visit the translation page. If you'd like to contribute to another Wikipedia, take a look at our full list of language projects. If you feel that I made a mistake, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Skrelk (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hi Garagepunk66, I've moved the article to your user space, follow the link above. I think it would be possible to re-add it to the main space here on English Wikipedia after you a) translate it b) provide multiple reliable and independent sources confirming that the band is notable. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Los Saicos (Wikipedia article in Spanish), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.buenastareas.com/ensayos/Los-Saicos/6717225.html. It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues. If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC) HAL made an error. Oops! Actually, the site mentioned above is a Wikipedia article written by fellow Wikipeidans who just happen to be on the Spanish laguage version of Wiki. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Los Saicos (Wikipedia article in Spanish)
A tag has been placed on Los Saicos (Wikipedia article in Spanish), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English. If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ... discospinster talk 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Request for translation expansion on Garage rock article
I have attached the Spanish article to this site as recommened on the instuction page for translation expansions. We could rectify the best characteristics of both articles. For instance, ours could keep its "Garage Started in 1963 perspective, but have the necessary expansions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Correction in Kinks article: "Golden age" section should read 1966-1972--discussion of 1966 should be placed under "Golden age" section--"Breakthrough and touring ban" section should read "1964-1965"The "Golden age" section of this article should read 1966-1972, not 1967-1972. It was in 1966 with the release of songs such as "I'm Not Like Everybody Else," "Dead End Street," and "Sunny Afternoon," on singles, as well as the release of their first LP masterpiece, "Face to Face"--Face to Face (The Kinks album) (UK rel. Oct. 28, 1966, Pye Records) , that The Kinks entered what is now regarded as their "golden age." [10] [11] [12] This is the common understanding of all followeres and observers of The Kinks. See Jason Gross' website devoted to this topic, The Golden Age of the Kinks (http://www.furious.com/perfect/kinks.html). [13] According to Don Igancio, regarding thier 1966 album, Face to Face: "This album not only marks the Kinks at the beginning of their peak years (from 1966-1972)...".[14] See also article by Stanley Urbane "Face to Face-Heralding the "Golden Age" of The Kinks," where he says "In 1966...with 4th album, Face To Face, The Kinks took a marked change of direction, and for many, this was the beginning of the "Golden Age" of The Kinks." [15] The Face to Face album is inseperable from the preceding singles (mentioned above) that had been realeased throughout 1966--they are closely tied. They share the same thematic and stylistic preoccupations with the album. In fact, "Sunny Afternoon" was included on the original Face to Face LP, and the other singles' songs are usually included as bonus tracks on CD versions of the album. Understandably, making this change would necessitate other changes:
And or course 1964-1965 were great years also--the kind that any other band would regard as a golden period. Long live the Kinks!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I made the necessary changes. Now the article is more precise and factual. The text now reads more impressivley and looks great on the page.Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Evil (garage band)I just edited the Evil page to include the new members with better formatting in the infobox. By formatting the names with a plainlist, you can achieve the list format. Since there are no other bands known as Evil, I moved the page to "Evil (band)." I'll take a look at The Grodes, too. Bonnie13J (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Heading to "That Obscure Object of Desire" article should mention that it was Bunuel's last filmThe heading should say that That Obscure Object of Desire was Bunuel's last film. That is a glaring omission and is absolutely necessary to point out at the beginning. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) I have made the necessary change. The heading now mentions that it was his final film. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Garage rock article: added mention of Link Wray influence and made minor change in wordingI added (annotated) mention of Link Wray influence to the article. I also changed the wording (in the part about British Invasion influence) from "to adopt a British Invasion lilt," which sounded silly and unencyclopedic, to "adopted a response..." (i.e. to the British Invasion), which not only sounds more appropriate, but is more correct. I added several references to back this up.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Hi, it looks like you're the most active contributor to this list article (List of garage rock bands). Lists like this (lists of notable examples, rather than an exhaustive list like a team roster or books written by a single person), are supposed to comprise only notable entries, meaning everything on the list would be a blue link (have an article already). As it looks like you've done a lot of work compiling this list, I wonder if you would want to be the one to go through it, or maybe to "userfy" its contents or to create stub articles on some of the bands if easy enough for you. --— Rhododendrites talk | 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC) New articles
Unfortunately I won't be able to help with the latter two articles for some considerable time as I'm going to be busy with the main Australian rock article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I've tried the nowiki solutionSince you're having trouble with that blacklisted link, I've jumped in and used the nowiki option. I apologise for my presumption if this annoys you. I also added a reflist up there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Update on New articlesNow that regular transmission has resumed, I'll add the comments I was going to add several hours ago...
I'll be going back to Australian rock and will continue on 'third wave' soon.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Australian rock talkpage material == Garagepunk66Sorry to address you here but your talkpage (and even this page to a certain extent) has fallen victim to the latest "improvement" by wikimedia maintenance editors. See here. On this talkpage the refs below my comments had been added previously (way up there somewhere). As far as I can see there is no reflist nor references 'plate. I certainly don't want these refs displayed under my sig (implying I added them for some reason). The "improvement" adds the refs regardless! Now check your talkpage, try to edit it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. I'll check it. I hope that the people at the help desk can get this problem resolved in a timely manner. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've moved this material here as it does not directly relate to Australian rock, the problem was due to maintenance editors changing the way refs are displayed: it is now automatic. One of the refs used at the Kinks section above was blacklisted (presumably after it was placed in this talkpage) and hence editing of your talkpage was thwarted. I resolved this problem by placing two sets of nowikis over the offending ref (it occurs twice) and placed a reflist 'plate under the section where the refs are used so that they display up there. I hope my jumping in (which I try not to do on someone else's entries on their own talkpage!) has not annoyed you.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
To archive or not?This talkpage is now getting rather long, if you wish you can create archive copies of old discussions, delete them [its your talkpage], or just let the page get longer... I use lowercase sigmabot III which automatically archives my talkpage (see how to) for me. There are other bots available (see Category:Wikipedia archive bots). If you don't want to use a bot you could create an archive manually (e.g. User talk:Garagepunk66/Archive or similar, [Note: until created this is redlinked]) and move older material there by yourself. I also use a simple archive box (see archive box) so I can easily check earlier entries. Other archive boxes are also available. I'm almost certain that if the earlier material had already been archived when the 'maintenance editors' had made the refs appear you would not have had all this trouble with your talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)22:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[I've de-Redlinked the above Archive style as being redundant]shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Decision time
I could keep the Five pillars and Teahouse messages. I don't mind if you archive all of the other threads on this talk page, unless you wish to keep any that relate to the "Australian rock" article--you could leave those. I'd then have an uncluttered talk page for a while. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Australian rock updateI'm leaving you to it for awhile. My brain is in a fugue... I need a rest from this article. Have fun.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Garage rock at McFarlaneMcFarlane's encyclopaedia was available [online], over ten years ago, at WHAMMO (you'll find a link at the Australian rock article in the General refs section). The website has since been archived by Wayback Machine (and elsewhere). Some new entries were added and others were updated for the [online] version. He usually gives their year of formation and genre(s). Other than the ones you mentioned at Australian rock; for 1960s artists he uses the terms "garage rock", "garage punk" or "proto-punk" at: The Atlantics (1961, initially as a surf group, 1966), Bitter Lemons (1965), The Black Diamonds (1965), The Cherokees (1961 as beat pop, offshoot: The D-Coys, 1966), Derek's Accent (1966), The Elois (1964, initially as R&B, 1967), The In-Sect (1965), La De Das (1964 as R&B in New Zealand, 1966), The Pink Finks (1965 as R&B), Spectrum (1969, see previous band of Mike Rudd in New Zealand, Chants R&B, 1966), and Tony Worsley and the Fabulous Blue Jays (1964 as beat/pop, see associated artist Toni McGann, 1965). It is difficult to search per artist at the Wayback Machine itself but other [online] sources may be available, such as the front-end index, here. McFarlane reinforces my understanding that "beat boom" occurred in OzRock first, and was followed by harder R&B styles from 1965 onwards. Most of the early influences on these OzRockers were British invasion artists. In their turn they influenced Oz punk/post punk bands of the 1970s (not just The Saints), and then the "guitar rock revivalists" of the 1980s.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC) == How to change settings?If, in the future, you wish to change the settings for the lowercase sigmabot III: you'll have to go up to the code at the top of your talkpage. Possible changes depend on your preferences:
I hope these explanations will make it easier for you to change the settings whenever you like. I might not be available in a timely manner to give you further assistance... I'd rather edit articles...shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC) New article on the CreaturesI just took a look at the article now, and it looks good! I made a few pretty minor changes, but I'll keep an eye on it for any future changes. Bonnie (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Ed Wool and the NomadsI made formatting changes to the article - hopefully you can add sources to a couple of the albums/singles. Happy to take a look at it! Bonnie (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ThanksThank you for the touch-ups on the Mod subculture article. I was looking for words that had the right sound and meaning. You've found them! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 28Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mod (subculture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blow Up. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Reference errors on 2 April
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC) April 2015
I did not mean to attack you personally, but, at the time, I felt that you were not giving me a chance to make my best case concerning the content of the matter, which was frustrating, so I was letting you know that your comments were not helping. But, I sincerely regret that the discussion got so contentious. I apologize for any hard feelings. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
And best wishes to you. Thank you for your kind consideration. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 9Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Invasion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Creation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Garage rockHi, I appreciate your edits to the garage rock article, I don't plan to alter anything major like you do, but I was wondering if some early garage bands like the Music Machine or the Swamp Rats should get an extra notice for their early development of garage punk. Just an option I'm throwing out their. I read some of your articles too, which I like. I wrote some too and plan to write about a band called the Contents Are. Hopefully we can cooperate on future articles because I enjoy this subject. Keep up the good work, I am thankful for it. Peace :) TheGracefulSlick ( talk) Note: I started a list of female bands on the garage rock talk page for you. Hopefully it helps.
It definitely wouldn't hurt to improve the Pleasure Seekers article too. It ultimately strengthens the already solid article you are developing. I will address these issues in the next day, if that is satisfactory for you. Note: For future reference, I am actually a male. It's ok you thought I was otherwise, you are not the first :) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Quite alright, my name on here is not the most masculine, but it is a tribute to the lovely Grace Slick so I like it.TheGracefulSlick (talk)
There was this band I thought was interesting. I don't mean for the article, just listening, their name is Wimple Witch (no article, sadly). They seem to have early punk influences, give them a try if you want. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
It is very interesting to me, I barely hit the surface of all those bands out there. My favorites thus far are The Music Machine, The Human Expression, and The Chocolate Watchband (great name). Of course there are others I listen to and more I need to get to. Which is why I'm glad that such a widespread topic is receiving an article to reflect on the several developments. It sure has taught me a few things. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2015
I actually have the album, it wasn't what got me started, but sure is a fine piece to my collection. I believe it was two years ago or so with me listening to the Shadows of Knight. Still love them, of course, and I have expanded ever since. I should try to get the Nuggets II album, though as I am not nearly as familiar with Freakbeat as I should be. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015
FAC inputHi! Since you're a member of WP's rock project, would you be interested in commenting or reviewing my FAC for the article xx (album)? It's received on editor's comments but no follow-up yet, so anything would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 16Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Flynt & The Insurrections, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Folk and The Godz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Chocolate WatchbandThis article (The Chocolate Watchband) needs a lot of help, to say it plainly. I am not saying you need to do it because I know you have some important articles you are working on. I was just wondering how you think I should direct any editing: should I rewrite large portions of it to fit with found references (which may shorten some of the content), or reference what I can and leave the rest? Any other options you are free to express, I do know though that this band deserves an article that reflects their importance.TheGracefulSlick (talk)
Thanks for the suggestions, I'm glad I came to you for them. I also thought I could make a draft on my sandbox, see if you like it, and replace the existing article, unless that is too extreme. The Chocolate Watchband's official website is where they probably found most of their content so I will look their first. You can help if you want, it is appreciated, but I also realize you have other subjects to attend to.TheGracefulSlick (talk)
Ok, thanks for those notes, I have written articles before so I believe I got most of that down. I will go in the direction of fixing what is already their, instead of a completely new draft. May take longer, but in the end it will be a better article. I already started the intro portion and tomorrow I will work on the background. Right now, I wrote my infobox for my next article, No Way Out (The Chocolate Watchband album) in ny sandbox, but i think I will be off for the day. Hope your projects go well and I should be back soon :) Note: There is a list of ideas for future articles in my sandbox I consider writing. If you are interested, feel free to take one of the subjects, they are down your alley regarding 1960s garage rock bands. Just, if you could, tell me you are doing so, so we do not write about the same thing, thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) I finished the No Way Out article about the debut album by the Chocolate Watchband. I love the album and I am glad I got to write about it. I should be able to work more on the band's article tomorrow. I got to some of their early history, but the process is slow. (Still fun though) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
True, I didn't consider these points, and I will mention the last point you made. Some of my sources state it as garage punk which, I guess, got me off track. I also took their descriptions too much to heart, which I usually don't do, so I'm a little upset with myself. I, or you it's fine by me, will fix it shortly I just need to address a disruptive user who is attacking my music articles. Thanks for the help, as usual. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:12, 21 April 2015
Twentieth Century ZooThis article (Twentieth Century Zoo) has been nominated for deletion by a user who doesn't understand the importance of early influential bands (the user has already nominated two pages that were unanimously voted keep). Since you obviously are knowledgeable about this era of music, I would appreciate if you weight-in on the nomination as I know you will consider the experimental aspects of the group. Thanks, and I see the garage rock page keeps getting better :) TheGracefulSlick (talk)
Will do, it was one of my early articles so forgive me for its needs for improvement. It will be on my ever-growing list of things to do. Also, I think your opinion will have a greater chance to be read if it's on the nomination page. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (2nd nomination), that way others will officially be able to take your opinion into account. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
Keeping this short as "someone" will consider it biased. This (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading) is being nominated for deletion. Could use your opinion. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
Ghmrytle is on leave so unfortunately he cannot help. CrazyAces, I believe, sent me to AN/I, not entirely sure as it doesn't direct me to anything. Actually it's confirmed, he sent me to AN/I, apparently for asking people to weigh-in on deletion discussions. This needs to stop I just want to work on music articles. TheGracefulSlick (talk) A barnstar for you!
This is long overdue, continue the amazing work! TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015
Honestly, the short time we have collaborated together has helped me improve on my editing skills significantly, so part of the credit should go to you. Without you and Ghmyrtle, I don't think I would have been able to contribute as much as I hoped I could. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2015 I should be able to complete my article on Wimple Winch by tomorrow (so excited!) so I should be getting back on track, regarding article creating. I have been so involved in the death of Freddie Gray though, unrelated to music, I realize, that I got a little off task. Hope your plans are going well, I will read any articles you create in the future as they are surely about interesting topics.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC) April 2015
As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy and refrain from including non-free images on your user pages. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's non-free content policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of non-free images. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Article ideasI have been exceptionally busy on the Freddie Gray case, so, even though the work is fulfilling, I find it difficult to find time to write more articles. I have only been able to write the Wimple Winch article and I think it's a shame some of the draft ideas I found are going unused. If you ever have a slow day, I recommend writing about this band called "The Myddle Class", but any idea on my sandbox is open to you. It would be nice to see more of the bands appear on here and I have 100% faith in you to write an article on one of them if you want to. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I created The Morning Dew page, which I feel fitted well into the list of garage rock bands. It is a shame they went unnoticed outside their region as did many Midwest groups virtually trapped between the music scenes of the east and west. On a saddened note, I feel I need to express my sorrow for the loss of B. B. King. Such a momentous figure that will be missed, I'm sure you feel the same. Keep up the good work and peace to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Cite overkillDon't worry. Many editors, including myself, have been guilty of cite overkill. I suggest you find two or three reliable secondary sources that cover the early usage of "punk" in some detail. Most of your refs appear to be handpicked quotes from fairly obscure primary sources. Other editors might find those difficult to verify. It's often better to reference texts that are widely available. The work you're doing is impressive and has opened my eyes to a few things. Keep it up. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the words of encouragement, and I am thankful to all three of you, because all of you are helping me to be a better editor.Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Talkback Message added 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Country Joe and the FishI'm not sure about your opinion on the band, but Country Joe and the Fish is one of my favorites of the 60s, and after seeing the article on the group, I was so upset. It misses so much of what they were about, it definitely needs to be my next project. I would appreciate, when I am complete, if you could overlook it so I know if I did a good job or further improvements are needed. I should start editing by tomorrow.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: You are unintentionally adding to a quote. Please revert to original text.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I will change ti slightly. See if you like my next edit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, as long as we re-organize the way the sentence is worded and structured. We can paraphrase the exact same idea, but using slightly different words--and of course show the citation for the source. Perhaps we could say "photographed." Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC) I wouldn't recommend removing the quote for paraphrasing, but it is possible to include a word or two as long as this: (your word here) is used.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I will try something. If I am wrong than you can fix it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Go right ahead. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Made the change, what I did should specify what you wanted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Let us discuss the wording a little later. I plan to add the modern reception in the next day or two, and its possible tweaking should be at the top of the list of issues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC) That'll be great. I have finally ordered a laptop, so for the first time in a long while, I will be able to be more helpful. I want to look at some of the articles you mentioned, such as Country Joe, etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Great addition. It may be best to call the section "Critical reception," rather than "Modern reception," because some of the quotes form reviews are not recent (the one by Robert Christgau looks as if it was done when the album was released). In light of the fact that the LA Woman album is almost universally regarded as one of the Doors very best (and a bona-fide classic), it may be best not to start the section with the Allmusic review calling it "uneven"--we could move the Allmusic review down a few sentences and put some of the more glowing reviews first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Christgau review is probably reprinted from an older source (in all likelihood form the original review--the way he describes the bass player gives that away), but the time period of review should not matter that much, since reception sections of well-known albums are customarily not time-specific on Wiki.
In the Allmusic review, Unterberger goes on and on with glowing positives about the album, until the very end of the review when he says "uneven." so we could change the wording to put more emphasis on the positive aspects of his appraisal. This is an album that obviously we love, but more importantly is universally loved. The star-box (reinstated) would reflect that near universal assessment. By the way, if I sound "nit-picky," don't take that in a bad way, because I am so grateful for the tireless work you have done for these articles. I want to help you achieve the perfection that you are aiming for in in all you have worked so hard for. I am sorry that I have not been able to do as much as I should, by I have been hampered with my job responsibilities and lack of my own computer. Luckily, I am using my brand new laptop for the fist time as I write this message, so I will be able to do so many more wonderful things for Wiki. I just think it is great that there are a few enthusiastic and dedicated people to write about the music from this wonderful era. I truly rejoice in your contributions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
We need to put the star box back in. I am probably the craziest renegade (as you well know), but I try to suppress that part of me when I am editing an article. I'll express my "differentness" on talk pages, yes, but when editing an article, my responsibility is to only do what is best for the article, keeping myself out of it. I don't own any of these articles--they are not mine--they belong to Wikipedia. We are only here to do our humble parts, like craftsmen on a medieval cathedral. However much you may want to be different, you have to put the interests of the article first. Is shadowing the style of another editor (@ the Byrds' article) going to make you any more unique--think about that for a minute? Particularly when it means removing a good thing that was once in the article, put there by knowlegable and conscientious editors? None of us have the right to take that away. We need to put it back. If we want other editors to show us respect, then we have to give them the respect, too. Don't be so obsessed with G.A. that you forget to just do what is best for the article. The Byrds article is rated G.A. because it is well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, and accurate--that does not mean it could not be improved in little ways (all articles are forever in need of improvement, even if minor--and every article has different needs and contexts). Also, G.A. only means good, not great. Why aim to merely pass with a C, when you can get an A+? Please understand that I mean well in what I say--I am speaking as an ally giving my best advice. On a lighter note... I'm guessing you've played the song by the song, "Moulty" on your copy of Nuggets and are probably already aware of the involvement of members of the group later known as the Band (Robbie Robertson & co.), who played some of the instruments on the track, and contributed to the backing vocals. There is so much great trivia when you get into 60s garage! It is great watching that old film of the Barbarians playing on the T.A.M.I. show--with Moulty playing the drums with his prosthetic hand--what joy he exuded (that is exactly the quality that music has lost). I believe that the lead singer for the Cryin' Shames, too, had a hook for a missing hand. On stage and in group pictures, he would wear a pirate hook! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You have a good point. They weren't well-known and came all the way from Massachusetts to play in L.A. I guess that in the 60s, concert promoters and radio stations were more open to new talent and less constricted by pre-set programming set by corporate conglomerates. DJ's could just play cool stuff, if they thought people would listen to it, and people did. Local and regional hits were a common thing, even if they didn't break the national charts. A small local band, even high school aged, could go straight into the studio, cut a record and have it played on the local hit AM radio station the very next day! Today such bands would have a hard time even being played on a college radio station. It was all so extemporaneous and unpretentious. It all seems so unbelievable today. I sit here almost in tears as I write this and try to imagine what it must have been like. When I hear these songs it is like a magic beacon--there is despondency (yes!), but at the same time a joyfulness (and even a goodness)--a spirit of generosity coming from a time when people had communities, had a heart, and cared. Where did it all go? We need that magic so badly today, but now people are just jaded. But, I guess that it is gone forever, gone, gone...never again to return. But, I hope that we can get another renaissance in our lifetimes. Never give up hope! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
On a lighter note, I created the "Moulty" page, and it was seen as relevant, as expected. Not sure where to go to next, but there is a lot of work to be done. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Keep it up!!! I'm so glad there are a few people that agree with me about this. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately my work was impeded today by an IP-hopper who is determined to harass me, for weeks on end. All my pages have (again, for like the third time) been protected and the person said "I have set the date on my calendar" for when the protection ends. I think it's rather childish, he gives me vulgar threats, even when I ask him to leave me to my work (I'm not sure what I did). But, alas, he just quoted me and gave me a big NO, so on June 20th I should expect more sad threats. I told him to get a hobby, but I guess this is his hobby. Anyways, I got some work done and I hope I'm glad to see those Spanish band articles are being improved!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't have to put up with that vandal's games. Let the administrators know, and they might be able to put a permanent restricted accesses on all the articles you are working on (as well as your personal pages). That way, you can have the peace of mind to concentrate on the work that you love to do. I am happy to see that there are people dedicated to writing about these wonderful bands and artists, whose stories so badly need to be told. It's hard enough dealing with the challenge of finding good sources. But, to have to worry about some pea-brained vandal interfering--that is unacceptable. That sick individual is not so much hurting you as the memory of the musical artists you are trying to chronicle. It is shameful. But don't let it get you down. Keep up the good fight! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry that you have to suffer at the hands of such a squirmy little low-life. Maybe, you could get the administrators to put another temporary restricted access into effect, which could protect you for at least a certain amount of (more) time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Music and other concernsTomorrow I plan to finish off my article on Sean Bonniwell's album Close. I'm sure you have heard of him from The Music Machine, so this album, you will find, is a total suprise when you consider the artist. By the way, the article about the band Fever Tree needs a lot of help, just saying in case you are interested. My "concern" I have referenced is about the user NegroLeagueHistorian. Through conversations with other users, they believe this is CrazyAces489 on a different account (it's not sock puppetry though). I'm not making any accusations or saying anything negative, but I wanted you to be aware in case past issues arise again, such as baseless deletion attempts. Those situations require your opinion, but I cannot directly ask you, since I will more than likely be accused of canvassing, even though you, more than most people, are knowledgeable in our field of interest. Perhaps occasionally checkup on them, but as of now they are keeping to themselves, so hopefully it stays that way. Thanks, as always.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll like the album a lot, even if it is different. And I'll keep my eyes on those nominate for delete discussion pages. I will keep an eye on the Wiki Rock and Albums project pages, and if there are any others, just let me know, and I'll keep a daily eye on those too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to concentrate more on the other articles when I finish the Garage article, but gosh, this thing is a really big load (whew!), so it is going to tie me up for a while. But, after that, I will have free hands to move in other directions particularly in the more specific-topic articles, which I would like to do more of. By the way, did you get to see the Sons of Adam article? I think you will really like it. When I finish the G.R. article I will go there and consolidate the citations as you had recommended I do. I just never took the time try the better way to cite (although I have to make the terrible confession that was aware of it all along, but sluffed it off--I was just too focused on the writing part to want take the time). But, I'm doing it correctly now. I can also use that little shortcut thing on the on the toolbar at the top of the edit page that says "cite," which makes it really easy--it brings up a menu where you just load the source info., then it sets it up in the proper way. So, I can just focus on the writing, which is what I love to do. I guess that we are scribes for Wikipedia--that is our calling. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you created that article--and it is really good! By the way, you've touched up and corrected some of my little "snafus" before (you know how I sometimes have a tendency rush things). No one is perfect--you've seen me in action! But then, I've even tidied up or slightly re-worded a few little things after Master editors, just as they have done (or you have done) for me. It's a process. It's all about the perfection that we work so hard for and strive to achieve in our articles, to make them the best they can be Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I made a couple of very minor edits at top of The Music Machine. I put "tuned" in place of "toned." I changed "one hit wonder" to "sole hit" (but kept the link to "one hit wonder"). I tweaked the sentence about protopunk, since proptopunk is not an actual genre per se (except maybe in Stooges era '69-'74), but rather a punk thread that runs through several genres which pre-date 70s punk: mid-60s garage, Detriot, glam, etc. I hope you don't mind. I think that you will like the changes. By the way I really like the article a lot. Fantastic article! Just some minor little tweaks to help achieve the high standard of perfection that you are aiming for in the article. I know you would settle for no less. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That's cool. Really, the only reason you've seen me correcting more things than usual, is that I'm clicking into a lot of blue links while I write the expansion to the Garage article, so I'm just editing a lot of things. And keep in mind, if I edit a thing of yours here or there, that does not mean I think any less of you as en editor for it. Nothing under the sun in could make me think any less. I could only have the highest regards. I have always considered you an equal as an editor. I just think it is so wonderful what you are doing. I have really enjoyed all of the articles you've worked on. My favorites are "Norwigian Wood" and "Moultly." I think those two are your very best--you really have a knack for writing about songs (which is something I haven't really focused on--maybe I should try it, but, that probably would not be my forte). I do not think I could have done those two as well (and I don't think anyone could've). I mean that. When I fist started at Wiki, I felt like an orphan, because there was no one who shared my passion for obsure artists from this particular era of music. But, since you've arrived, you've been like a brother in so many ways and I thank you. I feel like we have shared a vision for expanding consciousness about this music. I'm sorry that I had to take a long sabbatical from Wiki, but under the circumstances I didn't really have a choice--I had to deal with a death of my father, which kind of made it hard to focus for anything else for a long time. Then, came the computer and wifi issues. The good news is that you were able to step in and contribute, and that gives me the comfort of knowing that if for whatever reason I get sidelined again, you will be there to keep the cause alive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Gosh I must have driven Ghmyrtle nuts when I got here (I am so thankful for his patience with me--I think he really tries to support new editors and protect articles covering obscure topics). I hope I've "mellowed" out--at least just a little bit. Even though I am somewhat of a "retroist" and wary of technology (and afraid that Huxley or Orwell's nightmare might come true), the great thing about having the internet is that you have access to so many of the great musical artists of the right past at your finger tips. So if technology can do one thing right it can do that. So, the work we're doing on Wikipedia will make it possible for new folks to discover this wonderful music. By the way, when I finish the expansion on the Garage article, I will have more time to do other stuff, so I might try writing about some songs as you recommended--your words give me confidence to tackle something that I might have otherwise been hesitant to try. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what songs you could write about, it isn't as easy to find a suggestion as an album or band is. I wrote about songs that meant something to me and I couldn't believe had not been created yet (ex. "Talk Talk", or "Moulty"). I know "People In Me" hasn't been done yet, "I (Who Have Nothing" does have a page, but doesn't have a credible section for Terry Knight and the Pack. This is just off the top of my head, I'll think of more later.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I like that you have sincerity and real feelings and that you're not made out of cardboard. Keep up the faith! You can't help but get emotional when discussing the likes of such a great artist as Janis Joplin. There will never be another Janis Joplin. I think her untimely death was a real blow to music and to people's collective spirit. If she could have lived longer, the 70s might have turned out differently. I would have loved to have met her and shared a good swig of Southern Comfort, and had a good chat. I agree! She was someone that I'd would want to get to know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You can hear all of those extracurricular (or should I say essential) interests come through in her music. She was a true renaissance individual--the kind we need so much today. A lot of the core people involved in the San Francisco scene came out of the beatnik movement and probably knew Ginsburg, Ferlinghetti, and so many of the great beat writers, poets, and artists. Then, I guess people in New York, too, had a connection--people who had been in the whole Greenwich Village scene, like Dylan, Richie Havens, etc. Janis was somehow a part of that whole world. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I love their song, "Shame on You" (I have it on Garaqgebeat66 Vol. 1 and Best on Pebbles Vol. 2). I wonder, are they playing a saw for the solo in that song--sounds interesting, that high-pitched sound? I believe that they have an album, too--I'd like to get that. There are so many albums I'd like to get. I would definitely like to hear more of their songs. I want to make mention of them in the general G.R. article, so having an article to blue link to them would be great. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually have two turntables and trust me it's worth the money when you save up. I have a sizable collection of vinyl, and it is such a great hobby since there is literally millions of records to look for. CDs have some positives since a lot of the rereleases have additional tracks from outtakes, demos and such, that, if anything, are interesting in a historical view. Unfortunately, I do not think Neal Ford and the Fanatics' LP is available on CD yet. It is confusing when you consider they were arguably the most recognized band in Houston during their existence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Fining a good copy of the butcher cover would probably be almost as difficult as walking across the country. I hope you have a great walking "expedition" next summer--I'm sure there will be TV cameras to cover the event. Be sure to let the media know! I had a friend who rode his bike trans-America, but walking...well Forrest Gump did it, so more power to you. Definitely, go for it! I thought I was crazy! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It will be a wonderful life journey and I'm so excited for you! And, your life journey can inspire others. So, do find a way to let the media know, not as a stunt, but just to be there to let people know about your incredible journey--which I think people need to know--the world needs an intelligent, yet kind-hearted renegade to save us from destruction! The future of the planet depends on you! On more mundane matters...I would be happy to do a review, but I'm kinda new with the reviewing process. Is there an official review page where I give the review, in a forum where it can be properly aired? Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Several proposed changes:
After those things I can do the review. Keep in mind that I have to be honest in a review (my credibility is on the line--if do a "whitewash," no one will ever believe me again). But, if I have a negative criticism, I'll let you know beforehand---that way to give you a chance to make the changes in advance. Those are things that need to be modified. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, one question is did they use synthesizers? That is make or break as far as electronic music is concerned. Here is a prototype:
Unterberger never said synthesizers but he did describe them as an electronic rock band, and noted their distorted electronic sound effects, so I would still describe them as such.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is not one single source or writer that I deem to be infallible. Reliable sources are only reliable, not infallible. My main concern is accuracy and truth above all else. The sources only exist to get me as close to the truth as possible (however impossible to it might be), and to serve as verifications once I make a statement, so that people will believe me. I keep a critical eye about everything I read. As editors we have to use discernment. Think of the sources as roadmaps, but sometimes roadmaps have mistakes or are outdated. You have to find your way to reach the destination, and there is really only one person who can do it right. For instance, when I did the Sons of Adam article, the best and most iformative source I used said that they released a record on Almo in 1967. I was wary of that claim, but temporarily put it in. But, then after thinking about it and looking at other sources, I came to the conclusion that it was wrong--the best and most wonderful and informative source. But, a little voice inside of me said it was mistaken. So I took out the thing about the record in 1967--they were broken up by that time--there was no single released at that time. You as a highly intelligent person are the doctor using a scalpel in the surgery. Make sure that the operation is done accurately. The book you had in medical school may not suffice for a particular patient. There is an intuitive voice that leads you to the truth. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
He is has unique opinion on that matter, which I respect, but I would not take him to literally on that count. Unless someone showed me that they used a sytnthesizer (i.e. a Moog), then I would change my mind. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The Beatles used a lot of effects, but they are usually not classified as "electronic rock"--at least not in the formal sense (thought they did use a Moog sparingly on Abbey Road). But, keep in mind that the skeptical reader (rightly or wrongly) may ask questions about the credibility of the article, they my distrust what we are saying (even if we are right), based on a statement they are going to find hard to believe which is positioned right up there in the heading (the heading is where you make the first impression--if you say things the wrong way there, you loose the reader's trust before they proceed with the article). You do say there are corroborating sources, and that is a good thing. I would cite three sources next to that statement and go into umpteenth explanative detail after each citation, even putting page #'s, quote, explanations, etc. in the citations (as you have seen me do on a few occasions, where knew that readers would be skeptical). I would also find sources to make statements in main text parts of the article saying that they used synthesizers (i.e. Moog) or (or at least something akin like a Theremin). If you have that explained and sourced in the article, then the statement in the opening will be believable in the reader's eyes. I am open to what you insist, and may be willing to go along with it. Just be sure to build your edifice on solid ground, because the only people tougher than me will be the readers. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC) If it meets scrutiny, I will change it. But thus far I have only been met with a positive response from three experienced users I asked to review the article. I wouldn't just blatantly dive into GA if I wasn't sure the content was solid, which is what I was assured from the past responses. As of now, I think it is prepared for the reviewing process, if you wish to initiate it. I can suggest it to someone else if you are too busy with the G. R. article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I would be glad to do a review of practically any article you've ever worked on and be the happiest person alive to do it. That is not to say that I can't be critical here and there (as I would of any article)--If I am critical of reliable sources than I'm going to be critical about small things in a Wiki article, trust me. However, if I ever have any small criticism, I'll always let you know in advance--I owe you the decency of doing so. You have been such a good friend and I thank you--I don't take that for granted. By, the way I like the Electric Prunes article a lot. My only small criticism is that the statement about electronic music just needs a few more qualifiers (the things I mentioned above) and probably should have some sourced statements embedded in the main-text parts of article. You don't necessarily need to take the statement out, but just put the qualifiers in. By the way, there are certain other articles you've done that I would be ready to give a perfect review in a heartbeat--right this second, and I am inches away from being able to give the Prunes article a really good review. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I assume the that those three come after the sentence with the wording, "free-form garage music..." You might want go to attach those citations to the previous sentence, too, because it not clear that the electronic rock is also being referenced. I take it to mean that the three citations are not only discussing "free-form garage," but also electronic rock. Assuming that this is the case, I will be ready to do the review recommending G.A. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have already done the review and recommended it for G.A. I did not use a grid, but wrote it out in paragraph form. If you think I should go back and add the grid, let me know (if it is OK for me to go back and re-edit the review--or would paragraph form do fine?). Go read the review! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried to impose the grid, but I could not adequately tailor it to my own intended comments, so removed it. I am just going to leave the review written in prose. I am not Wiki-techie or obsessed with "WP: this" and "WP: that." I'm sorry that I am so naive to the ways of Wiki. I am just a writer who likes to write about music (usually made by people who were naïve about music, but just loved to make music). I think that my written word should be good enough as it stands. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll go in there and do it right. I want the Prunes' article to achieve the G.A. you have striven for and worked so hard for. This is the first time I've done a review, so please bear with me. I probably need to actually start reading WP guidelines and stuff (which I have almost completely ignored until recently) and tending more to the reviewing process, and the whole Wiki peer thing, etc. I've just been reluctant to get into all of that--I am painfully aware that writing about 60s garage bands is not going to get a lot of kudos at Wiki, and there will be skeptics and detractors who want to deny the value of including a lot of these bands, so I just tend to like to fly under the radar. Maybe down the road, when I feel that the obscure 60s bands are more adequately represented, I might switch my focus to other more "respectable" things, but for now there is too much a need here (even if a lot of the people at Wiki projects don't consider it a priority). My hunch is that the first step to attract interest of people to obscure 60s bands is to have a really good general article--that way it can serve as a "hub," which can direct people towards the specific articles. But, maybe I'm spending too much time on this G.A. article (it is a really proving to be tough thing to write). I would like to switch focus to articles about bands. Right now I'll go finish the review for the Prunes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As for your other comment, I would recommend you finish the G. R. article before going to bands. The G. R. article is a foundation for all those bands and it would be a shame if you cut your work short. I have said by the get-go that the article will be the best musical genre article when it's complete. And that is because of you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I finished the review (my first review) for The Electric Prunes article. I pasted the G.A. thing to the top of the talk page of the article (as per instructions), so the bot is supposed to come and change it to G.A.. If I did it wrong let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Awesome band!!! They were from my hometown of New Orleans--from the section called Gentilly (the suburban bungalow-style neighborhood where Walker Percy's The Moviegoer takes place). I believe the song you refer to appears on the various Louisiana Punk compilations. They did another great song, "She's the One," which appears on the highly-acclaimed Teenage Shutdown Vol. 10: The World Ain't Round It's Square compilation. I got to talk to their keyboard player at the Ponderosa Stomp Festival in 2013--what a great night that was (I could write a book about that one magical night)! Be sure to read the trivia on your talk page, because I put something related there, regarding another local band, the Gaunga Dyns. Some other great local bands: The Perisan Market, who did "Flash in the Pan." There is a song I really love by the Threshold of Sound, called "She's Mine." The way they say "duuude" sounds soooo working-class New Orleans. You'd be surprised, but we don't have a typical southern accent--but more a of a kind of "Brooklynese," similar to what you would hear in certain parts of NY or Philly. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor little grammatical thing. Now I'll go finish the GA review. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I was thinkin' the same thing. Scrolling down this thread is beginning to feel like unraveling to get to the final codex in Dead Sea Scrolls. So, let's start a new thread. When I archive this behemoth, I want to go in the archive and variegate it into different pages, but like usual, I don't know how. Last time, I just cut and pasted my stuff and put it in there, then deleted it from my talk page. Shows what a great Wikipedian I am! Of course, I put that in comments, so the Wiki police wouldn't cart me away. I've spent all my time up until now "fudging" my way through Wiki, with very little attentiveness to the actual rules and guidelines. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The BruthersThe only source for The Bruthers (garage rock band) is allmusic.com. That website is not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be used at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, that's a tough question. I love so many of them--there is a lot of "democracy" to go around in garage. Obviously, some of the better known bands...the Seeds, the Standells, the Unrelated Segments. Evil (form Miami) and the Savages (from Bermuda) were especially really ground-breaking (very edgy, but also diverse), but broke up right before they made their big breaks. I think that they should be revered in the annals of punk right up there with the Stooges. I Love the Sons of Adam--if only Randy Holden could have stuck around longer (but he was also great with The Other Half and later Blue Cheer. I think that "Saturday's Son" is one of the greatest songs ever written. But then, I love some of the folkier sounding bands such as the Leaves (go to Youtube and check out a beautiful song, "Please," by The Masters of Stonehouse) and of course the psychedelic ("punkadelic") bands, such as the Electric Prunes--they were all so incredible--they really make you want to get a lava lamp and put on a Nehru jacket and love beads and get "groooooovy man." The Chocolate Watchband was interesting in that they could swing all the way from gut-bucket (2-chord) prima-punk all the way to the most exotic and esoteric of sounds. They should have gotten a lot bigger. And there are so many bands--thousands of them. It's just so hard to pick a favorite. They're all so wonderful. I discover "new" bands every day. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) I knew it was a tough question, which is why I'm glad to see such an in-depth answer. I can tell our musical interests are similar. Personally, my favorites are The Music Machine, The Human Expression, Mystic Tide, and The Morning Dew. The Human Expression's music was particularly interesting, try listening to "Love at Psychedelic Velocity" if you haven't already. Mystic Tide had this soothing combination of psychedelic and garage rock that I instantly fell in love with. As for Morning Dew, I recommend their album, At Last, it is perhaps more progressive, but there are earlier recordings that show them in their experimental period, in which time they played folk rock, psychedelic rock, and electronic rock. I don't think I need to tell you how awesome the Music Machine is, protopunk at its best in my opinion. I will check out that song too, thanks for the recommendation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyways, about the music, I personally enjoyed "The People In Me" from The Music Machine. Sean Bonniwell could perfectly express teenage angst, which was complimented by his gritty vocals. They may have been a little ahead of their time though and, like most garage rock bands, their record labels failed them in one way or the other. That is a lesson I found when I wrote about The Cherry Slush. Their label literally sold them out when they went bankrupt, ending the band's chance of continued success. Also, you may find these groups interesting: Scrorpio Tube ("White Birches"), The Deep (Psychedelic Moods album), Oscar and the Majestics ("House of The Rising Sun 1969" - that fuzz guitar is amazing!), and The Glass Family ("House of Glass"). I'm guessing you heard of at least one of these guys, but hopefully one of them are a suprise to you. Peace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to keep up with those other editors, but I want to give the artists you recommended a Youtube spin! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Man, what an interesting story--that is one song that really does have a story behind it! I really love that article. I am so moved when hearing the way you re-counted the story of Moulty's wounded hand. You put such "T.L.C." into the way you described that situation. I know how much you feel for people who have been maimed and injured. That concern really comes through. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I have been writing about this band called The JuJus, and I recommend their song, "You Treat Me Bad". It was featured on the Pebbles compilation album, so it is possible you have heard it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You may have to look through AN/I's editing history, but an IP, presumably the one harassing me like the low-life he is, has threatened me with multiple socks, saying I'll wish I have never been born. People are so lovely, aren't they?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Check out my message at the "Trivia" board on your talk page. You will love my latest entry there! Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Pitche BlendeThanks for you contributions and tweaks! I'm learning, but it's step by step! Feel free to tidy up and your feed back is appreciated. I'm interested in many different types of music. I am also researching Venus and the Razorblades as well as drummer Kenny Aronoff guitarist Roni Lee and Cherry Slush. Also Dick Wagner and the Frost, Feel free to check them out. kenny Aronoff article needs serious help. Reads more like a bio. Thanks for reaching out! Bebfire (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Well thank you so much. I and I am grateful for your contribution as well. I am overjoyed that there are other editors interested in this wonderful music. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC) The SpidersFinally got around to taking a look at The Spiders article and the guidelines on titles. Based on the disambiguation guidelines, I think The Spiders (American rock band) is probably the appropriate title. In my opinion, if the band is notable enough to have its own article, it should be titled as such and not with a specific reference to Alice Cooper. I will, however, reference Alice Cooper in the brief description on the Spider (disambiguation) page that redirects from searching for "The Spiders." If the band is not that notable, then the information would only be included in the Alice Cooper page. Those are my thoughts, anyways. I'll do a little bit of cleanup on the article as usual. :) Bonnie (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
New pages/movesI'm happy to help! I can't move the pages, though, it required administrator help. You can request page moves at Wikipedia:Requested_moves and someone can take care of it for you. I would expect someone can help you out pretty quickly because I don't see why the moves would be controversial at all. I'll keep an eye on the pages and make sure to do some cleanup at some point. Bonnie (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks as always. You are a saint. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Electric PrunesAre you sure that you've followed all the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions? Most GA nominations that I've seen have set out a more rigid assessment against the criteria, so I think it may be a little premature in granting it GA status. But, as I've said to TheGracefulSlick, I'm not well-versed in GA procedures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GP66 for sticking through the review, I know it isn't the most glamorous part of Wikipedia. If the article isn't listed later on GA it may be template placement or we could ask Ritchie333 what is wrong. By the way, there is this band called Strawberry Window (awesome name!) that has nice psychedelic recordings that I recommend.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. [[3]]Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On one hand, we could look at this whole thing, frustrating though it is, as a positive opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia and to grow as editors. But, it is just taking too much time. Tomorrow, I might try a little trick: I could temporarily undo the G.A. listing template which I had put in a few days ago--and then re-paste it back in. Maybe that could wake up the little bot to get crawling! Do you think that might work? Maybe I could "Jerry-rig" it and see what happens. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Update any WikiProject templates on the article talk page by changing the "class" field value to "GA" and save the page using "GA" in the edit summary I'm not exactly sure what this all means, but you probably have some idea.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
You are right. While I probably could get it to work using the method described above, you have a point that some may allege that I am too involved and willing to see it nominated (I don't want them to think I'm "fanning air" onto the 8-ball to make it sink into the corner pocket). Of course, I know that you understand that I am mainly doing it because I recognize care and dedication that TheGracefulSlick has put into perfecting it and that I genuinely feel that the article is worthy of G.A., but others may not see my intentions that way. Obviously, I cannot deny that editors such as he and you are people that I have come to consider friends and allies, but that doesn't mean I can't be objective when assessing the quality of a piece--I wouldn't do a whitewash, but I realize others may see it as favoritism. So, I will take your advice and let someone else do it. I hope that TheGracefulSlick won't be mad or disappointed--I'm sure he will understand. I am confident that the article will achieve G.A. status regardless of who reviews it--it might just take a little longer, that's all. It will all work out for the best one way or another, because I believe that he has done a good job to get the article where it needs to be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Do I have to undo my review and undo the G.A. listing tag I put one the talk page of the article, or will others take care of all of all that? If there is anything I need to do, let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)== Music and Other Concerns Part II == TheGracefulSlick (aka GS67): Yours truly, GP66 has created this new thread as a continuation of the discussion on the previous "Music and Other Concerns" thread, which is now in the archive. Hey I noticed that you mentioned the Smoke (on a thread I can't find!--I saw it in the little message by the red number at the top of the page)--a band I really love--really cool Freakbeat band (although I'm assuming you are talking about the British band, the Smoke--I think there was also a lesser-known Australian group of the same name). They sang that incredible LSD song "My Friend Jack" (about Jack who eats all of the sugar cubes). Awesome song!!! I have them on a DVD taken from the German Beat Beat Beat show playing the song live. Its so cool--they scratch the strings of their guitars with bobby-pens to get that incredible scratching sound! I think The Move is on the same disc! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to check 'em out. There were a few bands called the Smoke--but I bet the one you are referring to is really great! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Great band! I was thinking about doing an article on them (would that be OK with you?--but if you insist on doing it, just let me know), but first I want to by their album (I have a couple of their songs on comps and have listened to all their stuff on YouTube), but I want to have the whole album at my disposal before I do their article. After I finish the G.R. article, it will free up my hands to do articles on a bunch individual bands. I want to mention them in the G.R. article too--I'll probably add the mention later when I get their band article written. I love their song "Like Stone." I believe that they were an incredible band that should have been more successful. They badly deserve recognition. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It is sad that such a trailblazing band is almost unknown to most people. They should be worshipped like gods in rock, but instead they are unknown--what a tragedy. Do you think I should do the additions in stages? You'll notice that I am taking a lot of things out of sandbox #1 and putting them in sandbox #3 for the second stage of additions. Do you think that is a good idea? I don't know how I can do it any other way. The branches on my tree would break (from the weight) any other way. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to check out them out...and Freak Scene too. Which brings me to a very interesting point. I am very interested not only in them, but what also in may be an actual term called "freak scene." I know that in the 60s they had "freaks" (hippies, radicals, hipsters and all that and there were hip scenes) and all of that. But, I came across a Wiki article called Freak scene which looked dubious and was completely unsourced, so I contacted Ghmyrtle and we worked on it a little to bend it into what we think is a better shape. Make me a promise: Do not read the article just yet (promise!). Do not do any research just yet (promise!). From the top of your head, to the best of your current knowledge, can you tell me what the term "freak scene" means, as best you can answer? I won't be mad if you say you don't know, because I don't know either! I don't want you to have any other pre-conceived notions, but just to tell me off the top of your head. Tell me what you think. Then, after that, you can read the article and do any research you want. Promise? What does the term mean to you? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I think too. By the way, you are welcome now to read the article. I will put a blue link above. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I.m sorry that you are still having to deal with that contentious individual. But, good luck with the edits. Do not let that nonsense deter you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Or from you, with The Electric Prunes (which will become G.A.) and so many other fine articles. But, I guess we shouldn't waste our breath on that sore individual. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I was doing other side projects, but in the last week I decided to put them on hold, except for helping with the G.A. thing, which I was glad to do. I have to ask for your patience and understanding. The G.R. project is a whole animal unto itself--it is so huge in scope--and its not just the length of it, but it involves a whole set of steps logistics that are unlike anything I've ever done--it has a structure that is more complex than what I've previously encountered. Before beginning the writing I had to seek out over a hundred bands and them arrange them not only by country, but also city and region. While writing it, it is as if each sentence is a mini-article unto itself, because I have to access a completely different set of references and links each time I make a statement (I didn't print the citations in the first drafts, because I want to see readable text in my edit box while I write--but I am still accessing sources and researching bands as I go). Usually in most articles, I am able to "surf along" with a singular narrative line or a few narrative lines from a few sources and get into the "groove" or "flow" and ride with it--I can hit a quick tempo with the wind at my back. But, this time it is as if I am arranging a symphony of narratives, trying to beat them into one coherent narrative. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, but it is more difficult and time-consuming than what I bargained for, and each little part takes time. I should probably do as you say and step away now and then and do other articles, then come back, but I feel an inner pressure to get it done soon. This article is the dream of my life at Wikipedia. I feel that we are now just a few steps away from having the finest encyclopedic article about this musical genre ever written in the English language. I want this article to be a monument for future generations to draw inspiration and knowledge from. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be really kind. I was meaning to ask, but I didn't want to take you away from what you are busy with, but yes that would be very kind--I need your help. A lot of the bands in Sandbox #3 can go in at a later phase (in the next month, some later). For the red-letter bands in sandbox #1, we can either create articles soon, or I can put them in black letters when I enter the first stage of additions, and have citations after the sentence. As for some of the least-known bands, I realize that I may have to make black-letter allusions certain songs of theirs that are considered garage classics, (and put a citation afterward). There may have to be some bands removed from inclusion (I hate the thought, but I am braced for that possibility). I made an article for a band that only made one single, the Shames, and I know that eventually it will probably fall prey to deletionsits--but they recorded a song that Tim Warren considers to be the greatest piece of wax ever recorded by a New England garage band, "My World is Upside Down," and what a great song it is--it just epitomizes the genre, but I know that Wiki cognoscenti would gladly have it thrown into the scrap heap. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll do that. By the way--go to your talk page: I have a new thread there about Dr. Spec's Optical Illusion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Try to focus on the bands red-lettered in Sandbox #1 first. By the way, I dig the Montells. They tie right in with Evil--they were like a sister-band and shared the drummer Jeff Allen (after the Montells, he went over to Evil). He would take occasional trips to England and watch all of the latest beat group-action in the Swignin' London rock scene, and bring back and share his observations with both bands. I want to do an expansion of the Evil article at some point, but I will have to wait--I've got so much on my plate. I hope you liked some of my things in the Dr. Spec's article--I acknowledge that you had a point about the sub-sections, however much I love to do them (I am chronically addicted to sub-sections). I love to dress up and article and make it look really nice--everything down to the size and shape of the paragraphs, the size and position of pictures, etc., almost as if I am designing the graphics in a book, so please don't be mad if I went a little overboard with the sub-sections--I hope you understand--its just my creative instincts. And oh, that list of associated acts: I did that as kind of a joke--I was going to take most of it out, maybe leave one or two acts--but I imagined you'd be amused to see all of those bands! I think that would be OK to keep one or two--keep in mind that small-name articles are not as scrutinized, so you can occasionally "bend" little rules--as long as it is in the interest of making the article as good and informative as it can be (I want the reader learn about a couple of other New Orleans acts--I care more about the reader's education than the Wiki cognoscenti who could care less about obscure garage bands)--nothing is totally cut dry at Wiki--sometimes there is a certain amount of "grey area" and occasionally things can be left to the judgment of a conscientious and well-minded editor--provided of course that other conscientious editors are willing to go along. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to worry if the new band articles are not yet "magnum opi" just yet. The main thing is that we get the articles made (obviously at the minimum acceptable standards of quality--just enough to lay decent foundations for future deveelopment)--then we can go back later and make expand them and make them more deluxe. I might create the one for the Bees--I'd like to do that one--if the sources are good enough. However, if you want to do that article, that's fine with me (just tell me)--right now I can't afford to be selfish and territorial about pet-projects I have wanted to pursue--I have to subjugate my ego to what is best for achieving the larger purpose of the G.R. article. I am guessing that when I finish the two to three phases of expansion, the article will have tripled or quadrupled in length and gone from approximately 72 sources to somewhere between 200--300 (or maybe up to 400), I don't have a crystal ball. I will ask for informal feedback upon entering the staged portions of text--I may get some resistance about expanding the parameters of the article to include areas outside of the US, but I think the sources warrant it. I have a 400-page book about the garage'60s punk bands in Australia. I just finished reading a book covering Indian garage/psychedelic--I need to set that up for a future expansion. I'll put off any formal review until later this year or early next year, because there will be areas of refinement after the staged expansions--I'm going to have to go back and check every single source in the article, whether the ones I put in or which others have put in, to make sure that they all are detailed and accurate to the umpth-degree, before asking a formal review. I will go through the whole text to make sure that it is smoothly, richly, and accurately well-worded top to bottom. But, I thank you so much for your help. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That is so kind of you, and I will let you know when the time comes. Luckily for you, I will probably wait until the later part of this year or early next to have it formally reviewed--I'm going to have smooth over a lot of rough-edges between now and then, so you don't have to worry about the burden of doing it too soon. I'll let you know come the time. But, I will make the first phase additions very soon (like in a matter of days or within a week): Before I enter the new phases of text, I'll consult the other editors' feedback informally on the talk page--and maybe wait about a few days before I paste it in (the consensus has really already been reached not only to expand the article, but also to extend the scope to encompass other counties--I raised the international issue in the "Expansion" talk thread exactly one year ago this very day and no one has objected--so in my mind the light is now green). So, before I enter the text, I hope the discussion will be about small matters--how to perfect it and tidy up, trim a few small things here or there, or what to add, etc.), but I may have to face skeptics--I hope not, but I am braced. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it must be really good so far. I think that the circle of editors who frequent garage stuff are pretty much in agreement with me on the major issues. So, I think it will go over well for the most part. And I'd be glad to help w/ the reviewing of CJF. Just let me know when. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That is so kind. You'll notice I'm logging in the citations into the prototype of the G.R. article right now. I'm trying to make them really detailed, so I'm doing more that just cutting and pasting. I'm researching each one individually and making each one from scratch (like Grandma's biscuits).Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
G.R. articleHere is a new thread to discuss expansion of G.R. article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
More power to you! By the way, you will notice I put a comment on the talk page involving that "other editor." I cannot stand idly by and watch you have to continue to endure this when you are trying to serve the good of others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Bad articles I can somewhat understand (though of course, like you I strive for quality and have little tolerance for crap). But, slandering the name of a good person with high ideals, I cannot. Maybe, I've put myself in the hornets nest by going onto that thread, but I just can't stand to see what he is trying to do to hurt you. It is so wrong. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, so much for that little interlude. Back to the discussion about the article and about music. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Believe it or not I haven't gotten to hear the H. P. Lovecraft II album, but I know I'd love it. I think your advice on music is always a good thing to take. I've always wanted to get a copy of the Smithsonian Folkways Anthology of American Folk Music. But I'll have to wait 'till I pay off my car--is expensive (almost as much as a monthly note), but I bet it's worth every penny. I think I read somewhere that Dylan had a copy and loved the album when he was getting started in the folk scene. The songs inspired him as (I'm guessing that you have might a copy?) they have inspired you. And, I know they will inspire me when I save up to buy the album. I have a feeling that you'd urge me to do so. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What we do here is so important, because we are documenting the history of practically unknown, but indigenous people who have made precious pieces of music that are national treasures (and treasures of humanity), which are in danger of being forever lost or destroyed due to neglect. Some "cognoscenti" may disagree with me, but in my mind there is no higher calling here at Wikipedia than to try to perpetuate the memory of these obscure artists who have made music that, though practically unknown, are nonetheless worthy of historical remembrance, not just for their own sake but for ours and the future generations as well. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Here it is. I have finished the Stage I expansion of the G.R. article! I have put a message in the talk section of the G.R. article talk page and will be entering the text very soon. I welcome you comments, in fact I hope that you find time to be active in the discussion there for a while. Go to my sandbox I and talk page and give it a look! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Man, that store sounds like the coolest place! It is great that there are people who love all of this wonderful music, whether it be garage, psychedelic, or country blues--or so many other forms. On the topic of blues, I love some of those delta cats like Son House, Skip James, Charlie Patton (he always sounded so perfectly drunk on every recording). But, you're about to turn me onto some of the even more obscure artists--I'm gonna have to save up and buy that Smithsonian Folkways anthology when I finish paying off my car. You know, I went through a phase where I was gettin' into stuff like Ella Fitzgerald--the sound of hear voice just brings me so much joy and Sinatra, who is just the coolest M.F. that ever walked the face of the earth. And you know the great thing--I still love them all. I may go through phases, but there is not any music that I have ever loved that I don't keep on loving! All of these people have given me so much inspiration in my life and they keep on giving. And, I know how much all your favorites have inspired you too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You were born to love music and it has been part of your destiny from day one. You were only waiting for the right moment to arrive to reveal the truth that was there all along. It is so sad that so much of the corporate pap played today is so devoid of all heart and soul. You are fortunate to have found your calling. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Garagepunk66 - Just a plea from me - when you make your changes, please, please edit one section at a time, rather than trying to input all your changes in a single "superimposed block" as you call it. It makes it much, much easier for other editors to see what you have done, and see whether we agree with you. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It definitely should be mentioned. I think there is a reference to it at the end of origins, and we could do more to mention folk influence on individual bands. I will bring up Dylan in the psychedelic section and should also make allusion to folk rock there. It might be testing the other editors' patience to ask for a full section, because I am asking them to embrace the international aspect of garage right now and I don't want them to think I'm asking for too much. But, I like the way you see how in the 60s everything was inter-connected, which is how I would love music to be again. Musicians then weren't so much worried about distinctions as with the larger consciousness. There were so many overlapping boundaries and people were just reaching beyond themselves--so when we speak of garage as a "genre" we have to remember to see how it fits in the larger context of its time and place, and I'm glad you recognize that. I want the article to be able to capture that. How do you like everything else in there? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, what I did was I went in and re-worded the British section, to make mention of that distinction (I put in a "caveat" explaining that generally British bands are not formally classified as garage, but that share similarities). Freakbeat would be the wing of the UK scene that most closely resembles American garage, and it would be of prime interest to people wanting to know more about garage. So, I think that any article that fails to mention the British connection would be woefully inadequate, and I hope you agree. There are certain British bands that come extremely close to garage (early Kinks, Pretty Things, and Downliners Sect), and some, like the Troggs that essentially are garage--I know that Lester Bangs thought so, but I don't word it that way, I just recount that in '71 Bangs called them "punk." I re-named the whole international section "International counterparts" and put a careful explanation about it in the heading, which places things in a slightly different context--making it possible to establish connections with the UK, without sounding like we are formally classifying it as garage. By the way, If there are any phrases or sentences that do not sound neutral, quote them (and tell me which sections they are in) and I can go back and modify them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the changes yet, but will do over the next few hours, I hope. Just a point about sources. The way these articles should be written is by identifying the best sources first, structuring the article and writing the text accordingly, and then tweaking the text to accommodate other, less reliable, sources and information where necessary. The best sources to use are existing good quality encyclopedias, textbooks (yes, they exist even for rock music!) etc., and recognised experts. I'd class someone like Richie Unterberger as an excellent reliable source - but some of the other articles on Allmusic, for example, are extremely inaccurate, and using band's own websites or blogs for information can be problematic (but can also correct obvious errors). I'm sure you know all that, but I thought it might be worthwhile just giving a quick reminder. And, of course, personal opinions are not allowed (apart from my own, of course.... !!). I don't know if you've come across User:Dan56 - he can be unpleasant to deal with, but he writes good articles that might be worth looking at. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that rule applies to when we are making a literal or face-value statement, but the last sentence of the heading is not that kind. It is litany of the various "catch phrases" or "nicknames" are given to the genre. It says "referred to as..." Shall we lie and make up something untrue just because we are trying to adhere to guidelines that do not apply in this context? Everyone I've ever read refers to it as "60s punk"--just look on the front sleeve of the Pebbles CD's and a hundred other places. I know of no one who calls it "1960s punk"--it's "60s punk." How many sources do I need to pull out to prove it? The problem with Wikipedia is that sometimes we get so obsessed with guidelines that we forget to just inform the reader accurately. MOS:DECADEI'll indicates that two digits can be used in certain cases, such as "Gay 90s," "60s' counterculture," etc.--as long as sources to justify it. I could get some sources and make cited references to the term in later parts of the article. With all due respect, I'll defer to your judgment in this case--I don't want you to think I'm being stubborn or unkind--I just want the statement there to be accurate representation of the colloquialism used. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to thank you for that kind thought you've expressed, because I've been pushing myself so hard with the G.R. thing that I'm beginning feel fatigue. You'll notice that I've started an article about the Guanga Dyns. Maybe I should finish it tomorrow as you suggested--oh yes and then Bohemian Vendetta. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Big project: Teenage Shutdown!I was wondering if you wanted to take part in this. I was going to create articles compiling the complete Teenage Shutdown series. The articles wouldn't be huge, but the point is to have the whole collection. There are 15 in the series so it is still a huge workload. If you were interested perhaps we could split (sorta, since it is 15) the album articles. I would do odd numbers and you even. Of course, if you are too busy I can manage on my own, though I thought it would be best to try and include you on this since there aren't many of these types of projects left (Nuggets, Pebbles, etc. are already complete).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC) By the way, this link should help on album names: http://www.45cat.com/45_comp_series.php?cs=Teenage+Shutdown
I'd be interested to learn how to upload the album covers. Can you explain how? I'd love to know! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm really glad to know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
We'll just do the best we can and hope that they don't delete anything. We can be vigilant about protecting the articles form deletionists. I'll get back to you tomorrow with a list of the 7 or 8 albums I'd like to draft, although if there are any of those you want to do, I'd be glad to swap any you wish. And, then of course we can edit them all together, so that they have a consistent style. Check out David Aguillar's presentation! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's cool, because I've always wondered what it must have been like to listen to AM radio in the mid-60s--from everything I've read about it, it must have been really fun. How I wish we could have those cool DJ's and mom-and-pop jingles today. So, I'll have to check Cruisin' out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I love that song! I have it on my copy of the Oh Yeah! Dunwich Records comp (CD). On my way driving here (to the coffee house where I just arrived to Wiki-edits this afternoon) it had just occurred to me that I forgot to mention that song in the G.R. article--how could I possibly have forgotten (!). So you read my mind! Let me go get a couple of good sources and then I will add mention in the article--it is a must have! I'm so glad you mentioned this! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I will as a side project, but if you have any additional sources from CD liner notes maybe you could write it if you want. I noticed that the Dr. Spec's Optical Illusion was enlarged from your additional sources so perhaps you can do the same here if you wanted to. I need to catch up on my Country Joe and the Fish draft tomorrow, so perhaps if your not interested I can create the Banshees article in a week or so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
No need to feel embarrassed at all--you have so many great records in your collection that others would die to have! There is just no way that any one person can collect all of this stuff in one lifetime. As for me, I would say that I have only begun to tip the iceberg, and maybe that is for the best. As much as I would love to hear all of these great records before I die, I never want to get to the point where there are no more frontiers to discover. I feel like a little kid in a candy store and I want to retain that childlike fascination for the rest of my life--that is one reason I've intentionally "slowed down" my collecting habit in recent months. So, consider it a great privilege that the discovery and "un-vaulting" of those volumes in the series await you for future revelation, just as for me that Smithsonian Folkways anthology is coming down the pike. As for the Knaves' mob connections--that is interesting. I wasn't aware, but I guess many musical artists have had to "play ball" with the "big wigs" to get gigs and record arrangements. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The Pebbles Vol. Two looks a lot better now. Thanks for improving it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to put mention of the Magicians in the New York and Mid Atlantic section of the G.R. article. Check out the 1966 Documentary, "Four to Go," which appeared on the WCBS Eye on New York series (pt. 1: [[5]], pt. 2: [[6]], pt. 3 [[7]]). As for the Banshees, I'll go check the liner notes of Oh Yeah! and get more info. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I read over briefly it and like it a lot. I can see that you put a of time and care into this--it shows in so many ways. It is thorough and well-written, and needless to say, it is a massive improvement over what was there before. I don't see much that needs to be changed--it all looks so good. This is splittin' hairs, but there are two sentences that you might wish to slightly modify: In the heading where it says "...consisted of issues concerning the counterculture...," you may wish to change to say "...addressed issues of importance to the counterculture..." That sounds more direct and powerful. In the seventh paragraph of "Electric music (1966-1968)" you may wish to slightly change where it reads: "The song met unprecedented exposure among the band's young audience after a performance...," which sounds a little iffy. But, I'm not quite sure how to find the right words to best express the idea you are trying to express. Perhaps you could try: "The song would have an unforeseen effect on the band's young audience as a result of a performance..." or something else--I'm trying to come up with the perfect phrase, but I think that even Shakespeare would get caught in a jam here. But, that's strictly "nit-pickin.'" Other than those two sentences the writing looks really tight and adroitly executed trough and through. I haven't checked through the sources etc., but I know that you are always a stickler there. Looks really nice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that this thread (and whole page) is getting rather long, so I thought I'd create a new thread and put all of the old stuff in the archive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Album Cover UploadsThank you for your message; I don't mind helping at all. From scanning your 'talk' page, it looks like you and I have similar tastes in music. I haven't done any major writing in Wikipedia in quite a while (though I still make small contributions regularly), so I might be a little behind the times. Uploading an image to Wikipedia is a little tricky, and it took me several tries to get the hang of it, but here is some instruction that should help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard . (There might be a new version of the 'upload wizard' that could make it easier than it was back when I was doing this a lot). Album covers, single covers and those kinds of things are automatically usable in Wikipedia; and of course, the images are very easy to find on the Internet (I usually use the 'images' page in Google). Don't worry about finding a copyright tag or whatever when you save the image from that search – as long as the image is of the front cover, you are 100% covered for 'fair use' no matter how you find the image. I should amend that to say that album/single covers are automatically usable for articles about that album or about that single; for some reason, you are not allowed to use an album cover to illustrate an article about the band. Then there is some language that you need to attach with the uploaded file to show the 'use rationale' for the image, and that you are making it under 'fair use'. This is a relatively recent image that I uploaded which has the attachments in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StonePoneys-CD-2.jpg . If you open the file as though you were going to edit it, that will show the details on what you need there. You can then copy that over to the file that is created after you upload an image. I always used a previous upload to get that stuff; the layout, etc. has to be exact, or it doesn't work right. The uploading goes to 'Wikimedia' actually, not to Wikipedia directly, so don't let that throw you off. Good luck. Shocking Blue (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Garage Rock article. Hello, I'm Stephen StrangeHello, I'm Stephen Strange (from the Spanish Wiki). I've readen your sandbox 1, with the new modifications. I've enjoyed the article. I think it's excellent. The inclusion of sections about the "British Connection", Continental Europe, Latin America, Asia and Australia is a very good idea. Really superb. I knew "Los Nuggetz", the compilation of Latin American Garage and Psych. And I think it's a very enjoyable and good collection of 60's Rock'n'roll and Pop Spanish-speaking bands (and some Brazilians portuguese-speakings, of course). But I have some doubts about it as a real Garage and Psych compilation. What I'm really sure is that, despite its title, it's not a "Latin American" compilation ('cause 38 of 92 songs are sung by Spanish -European- bands), hehehehe. I've readen the Latin America section of your article. It's a true honor for me that you've used my text for your article, really. I'm very happy. As I said, I'm not Latin American (I'm Spaniard). I'm a real fan of Garage Rock (well... In fact I'm a true fan of Rock'n'roll, 60's sounds and the first New Wave and Punk rock from the late seventies). I discovered Garage Rock in very early 80's, just a few years after the "Garage Revival" arrived to Europe. And I fell in love with it, ehem. Forever. In Spain, the Latin American bands from the Sixties were totally unknown during the 80's and the most of the 90's (except Uruguayan Los Mockers, because their first and only album was reissued in 1986 by an independent Spanish label). We discovered Los Saicos in the late-90's (when another Spanish label -Munster Records; a record laber specializing in Garage rock- released their complete recordings). I want to say something about the Spanish bands you've mentioned in Continental Europe section. I love Los Bravos. I think they were a fabulous band. But I think their sound never was close to Garage rock. They were a very good 60's rock'n'roll (and psych, sometimes) band. And very successful, of course (in Spain and in the whole world). But I've got a lot of doubts about they as an example of Spanish Garage sound-a-like. Instead, I agree with the inclusion of Los Salvajes, Los Cheyenes. And I want to show you some examples of 60's Spanish bands who were much closer to the original Garage sounds:
|
