Talk:Goodbye Pork Pie Hat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011[edit]

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

--CactusBot (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Goodbye Pork Pie Hat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological Renditions[edit]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Renditions section were chronological? Is there any reason not to edit and sort that section by date? BrianWilloughby (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Let's remove non-notable recordings as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goodbye Pork Pie Hat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pentangle[edit]

Should the cover version by Pentangle, from their 1968 album Sweet Child, be included in the "Covers" section, as per e.g. this review, even though it was never released as a single? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No links in headings. Breaking backlinks.
As a jazz song, I agree that WP:COVERSONG may not be necessary, and the other entries are certainly no more notable that Pentangle's. So perhaps the question should be more general, for this song, what should the criteria for inclusion of a cover version be? The band has an article? The album has an article? The cover is noted in a reliable source that deals with music? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to listen to this particularly beautiful version, it was uploaded to YouTube by Patricia Rosa Viola, on 7 August 2014. Not that we are allowed to link to that, of course. As noted at the album article, it was recorded live at the Royal Festival Hall in London on 29 June 1968. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you find yourself making the same ‘good faith’ correction to a particular page time after time, isn’t there a time when you start to wonder if perhaps the mistake is on your part? From my point of view – which seems to be shared by a number of other users landing on the page – you’ve missed something important in the afterlife of this song. Though it started as a jazz composition and clearly became a standard, it’s also the case that Goodbye Pork Pie Hat has a significant history outside jazz. Whether you like it or not, the work of Jansch, Renbourn and Pentangle was undoubtedly the start of that, as well as being the first documented recording by someone other than Mingus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.31.54 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you keep adding content whose content continues to be removed, it ceases to be good faith on your part. I removed all of it as it does not meet COVERSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps the question should be more general, for this song, what should the criteria for inclusion of a cover version be? The band has an article? The album has an article? The cover is noted in a reliable source that deals with music? Useful questions, I thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's an article about the song, surely the first question is whether a particular cover changes the way the song is seen or understood, or brings it to a new audience? The song and its trajectory are the central issues, and that's clearly why so many people instinctively feel that the Jansch/Renbourn/Pentagle work is an important part of the story. 121.45.31.54 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was quoting me above. No, the question is not about publicity for the song. COVERSONG is the baseline for discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anon from Adelaide, WP:COVERSONG is what applies and since you're turning into a WP:COATRACK, unless we come to a new consensus, we'll have to live with the community consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my recollection it's the first time I've visited the page, and certainly the first time I've edited it, so I'm hardly engaged in the repetition you suggested earlier. Those other additions have clearly been by others who understand that the Jansch/Renbourn/Pentangle contribution is important. I've reverted the list since your reasoning lacks both consistency and coherence. First, though you've repeatedly removed Pentangle and other versions you disapprove of from the list, you haven't previously objected to the list itself (inconsistent). Second, if the covers by other artists aren't notable, then the re-recordings by Mingus are hardly notable either, but you left that section intact (incoherent). If the list has become a Coatrack, that's because it contains too many versions that do nothing but confirm that the song has become a jazz standard. That's not the case with the versions I've added – they all tell you something about the song and it's trajectory. 121.45.31.54 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.45.31.54 Your edit history argues against your claim. You have been editing the article daily since 2020-01-18T04:34:57.
Importance is not the benchmark for inclusion, notability is. If other have written about the covers, that would merit inclusion. In this instance, that would be music reviewers singling the cover version out. That's what the charting criteria in COVERSONG is meant to address. In short, the criteria is clear, "only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy. Cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list." What I saw before removing the increased list was database entries pointing to albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To look at that another way, I visited the page once, returned to see if you'd changed it back, and then put some effort into shoring it up against your repeated and wilful vandalism. We've now reached the stage where you've compounded an earlier disingenuous statement with one that takes it to the point of dishonesty. As for your invitation elsewhere to hang around and do stuff? No thanks. You've reminded me exactly why I gave up trying to do anything at Wikipedia. Your 'contributions' to the page very clearly indicate that you only have sight of the guidelines, and not the value of the content. Once again: when you see different people making the same change over and over, it's time to ask whether there is, in fact, some value in the change they're making. Your actions have shown that you're incapable of doing that. 121.45.31.54 (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or to look at it another way, you just called me dishonest and quite frankly, now I see why people pushed you away before.
In short, there are limits to what the project aims to do. If you want to have a list of every recording of the work, there are blogs that will allow you to do that. Collectively, editors have decided to draw a line in the sand related to which cover versions to list and which not to. I'll be removing the unsourced content about additional covers shortly, unless Martinevans123 decides to do it before me, or make a case to save it. WP:V, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More disingenuity. Well done! For what little it’s worth, I wasn’t pushed out, I slowly came to the sad but unavoidable conclusion that dealing with editors who miss the broader value of Wikipedia and behave like vandals while endlessly quoting the guidelines, often selectively, just wasn’t worth the effort. On a separate point, sources not having been added isn’t the same as them not existing. The idea that Jansch & Renbourn offered individual interpretations of the composition on their joint recording can be confirmed by listening to it, as can the similar suggestion that Pentangle didn’t add vocals or scat despite having four singers (including one who certainly sang scat on at least some occasions). That four of the five contributed vocals can be confirmed in various places. Most of the other points (Grossman, McLaughlin, Worrell, Tabor, Hooker) can be verified on various wikipedia and AMG pages or by listening to their recordings, though for confirmation that McLaughlin’s solo recording was a return to the song you’ll need to refer to the book Bathed In Lightning. If you don't want to listen to it, written confirmation that Hooker’s lyrics are radically different to earlier versions can be found at AMG. For confirmation that d’Onofrio offered yet another set of lyrics you need Secondhand Songs, and to listen to the track. Natasha Agrama’s lyrics (deliberately not mentioned in the material added) are a variation on Mitchell’s. 121.45.31.54 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the nature of COVERSONG? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Personnel"[edit]

@Walter Görlitz: Since Goodbye Pork Pie Hat is a jazz standard, multiple versions (arrangements) were recorded. The personnel listed only appears in Mingus Ah Um; thus, it should be deleted.

–Adamilo (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. This a record of the first recording as well as the general information for the song, although the section should be clarified. For instance "Here Comes the Sun" lists players, Secondly, there are more players on the album than the track. And to call it a jazz standard is somewhat misleading, but many (post-big band) standards list the players of the original recording, albeit in prose. An example of this is "So What". So removing it is the lazy option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Our World article[edit]

I've added a link to the Lester Young Nov. 1949 Our World interview, found at Christopher Laws' online magazine Culturedarm. He reproduces the magazine image, and the quote about "gray" neighborhoods is in the first photo caption. You can click and drag the image to see full-size. I don't know if Our World can be found in digitized form online; the link at Culturedarm goes to another website (Crazyhood) but no longer works. Also don't know copyright status of the November 1949 article, so not sure we can post the image.11 Arlington (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11 Arlington (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goodbye_Pork_Pie_Hat&oldid=1201790425"