Talk:Barry Miles

Miles' political views
Had to remove the words "right wing" from the article in the description of Libertarians. There is nothing right wing about the musicians that Miles attacked in print. Neither Zappa or Peart would ever call themselves right wing or anything close to it. Both are actually liberals of the Libertarian persuasion. Libertarians are neither right wing or left wing. For more information please READ the article about Libertarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.203.159 (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Had to update the article again to correct errors. The previous editor was incorrect in assuming that the word "liberal" was misused here. The context in which I used the word "liberal" is that of "Classical liberalism." Peart and Zappa are left-wingers of the Classical liberal/Libertarian camp. This is in contrast to left-winger Miles' aggressively pro-union, anti-capitalist, socialist views. It is entirely fair and accurate to describe Miles as a "collectivist." He believes in using government power to heavily regulate the lives of citizens. Miles' views are in direct opposition to those who believe in individual freedom as expressed by Classical liberals. Peart and Zappa are among those who seek to minimize state limitations of individual rights. Please read the article about "Classical liberalism."

Miles' habit of injecting his own political views and failure adequately explain the views of his subject in the Zappa biography show a rather remarkable disregard for objectivity and balance. It is easy for him to win political arguments when writing about the views of a dead man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.22.111 (talk • contribs)


 * The term "liberal" was misused, because this is an article about a British subject; and in the UK "liberal" has a different meaning to that which you say here is meant. Your additions, which seem to represent a personal viewpoint, are also uncited. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "liberal" was not misused here. There is no personal bias as claimed. After reading the articles Liberal Democrats and Liberal Party (UK, 1989) it should be clear that both parties take their name from the tradition of Classical Liberalism that is shared with Peart and Zappa as claimed above. However Classical Liberals are also free to disagree. They can disagree and still claim to have roots in the same political tradition. Classical Liberals in Britain and Classical Liberals in other countries are essentially the same. If one thinks there is a difference one needs to present an argument for this position rather than accusing others of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.93.32 (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Biography of a Living Person
This page seems to be prone to personal outings and attacks may need admin watch-over. FYI Libertarian and far right are quite synonymous but not always these days but WP:BLP is the standard by which a page may be edited so respect the site policy please. Further violations will be taken to admin level Catapla (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article about Libertarianism. You will discover that it is not at all synonymous with "far right." Libertarianism is neither left nor right. Please pay special attention to the Nolan Chart. Libertarianism is the opposite of Populism and contrasts with both Left-wing and Right-wing views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.236 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to me all this Rush stuff is some vendetta by Rush fans as it relates to one article by someone who has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles. No source re Miles and socialism so redacted. BLP people sources for info please.

Catapla (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the basis of the claim that Peart is right-wing? Until there is some evidence to support this it needs to be removed from the article. The previous editor is as badly mis-informed as Miles and neither has presented evidence to support this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.236 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi IP Re Rush, the article on Barry Miles is one about an author who has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles including 1 article some 38 years again on Rush. These seems to have lead to some sort of vendetta from fans of Rush as was evidenced on this page eg publishing personal details such as address of the subject.

Now as to Rush it is actually irrelevant to this biography but note the below from an academic article by Chris Matthew Sciabarra RAND, RUSH, AND ROCK from Fall 2002 issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (Volume 4, Number 1): 161-85 see http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rush.htm

Note that the author refers to critics not critic and makes no ref to Barry Miles. See below

"Rock critics, however, labeled the music "fascist," an epithet hurled frequently at Rand herself. The band's "affinity for the objectivist political philosophy and. . . highly individualist literary characters of the Russian-born American writer," led them to extol "selfishness as a virtue." Thus, Peart's lyrics became a virtual "transliterat[ion]" of Rand's ideas "for the postcounterculture rock generation." Even "the music itself" echoes Rand's epic novels by following "a large-scale, progressive rock narrative" (192).”

“Amazingly, Bowman argues, critics assumed that the authoritarian victory symbolized a nascent "fascist" streak in Rush.29 Instead of viewing the end of 2112 as a comment about the destructive character of authoritarian rule (exemplified by the Syrinx' theocracy), critics such as J. Kordosh concluded that for Rush, as for Rand, individualism is fascism.30  Bowman quotes Kordosh: "I don't want to add that many people consider Ayn Rand to be prima facie fascist, but I will anyway" (199). It is against this knee-jerk sentiment that Bowman rails:”

29. Peart observes that such sentiments led him to make fewer overt references to Rand in his lyrics. Peart tells Bullock: "There was a remarkable backlash, especially from the English press� this being the late seventies, when collectivism was still in style, especially among journalists. They were calling us 'junior fascists' and 'Hitler lovers.' It was a total shock to me." In later recordings, Peart strives "to incorporate [Rand's] ideas in a more subtle manner" (Bullock 1997, 39). Bullock states that Peart's "movement away from hard-core Randianism paralleled [his] rejection of involvement in the organized movement." Peart argues that the movement

I think it is clear that there is no reason to have so much Rush info on this biography it is over weighting Rush's impotence in the author Barry Mile's life. Re neil Peart etc that debates should be had at his own biography page linked from main article.

Catapla (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of including info about Barry Miles' comments on Peart and Zappa is to show that Miles has established a pattern of injecting his own opinions in articles that are supposed to be about musicians. I have read enough of his work to know that Miles has never let his alleged objectivity get in the way of a good left-wing political rant. The fact that his Zappa book contains no original research and dozens of factual errors is another good example of the extremely low quality of his Rock journalism.

Oh, and Catalpa (or is it Catapla?), are you aware of the typographical errors in your last post? Just wondering if you know how to spell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.236 (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a secondary source to your assertions? If not then they violate WP:BLP you have an axe to grind but Wikipedia is not the place to wield that axe. Is there a secondary source i.e a newspaper article or academic journal that states that Miles's book had no historical research? If not then you personal opinion is irrelevant on this site as there is no scope for original research or personal vendettas on Wikipedia it is an encyclopedia not a blog. I think it is time an admin checked out your postings and this page. Also your last post indicates a level of hostility to helpful points. RCatapla (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not put my opinions in the article. The article is about Miles' opinions. I saved my opinions for the Discussion page. There is a difference. BTW, I still am not sure of your name because you spelled it two ways and have not clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.170.98 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you still doubt my statements about the Zappa book read the reviews at Amazon. Multiple reviewers there point out the overly simplistic writing and lack of any research. Even many those who liked the book can see through Miles' left wing prejudices.

http://www.amazon.com/Zappa-Biography-Barry-Miles/dp/080211783X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.170.98 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * do you mean readers reviews or published reviews? The first one there from the US Library Association say "Miles examines the mid-1960s L.A. milieu that spawned that album and how Zappa's first release stretched the limits of pop music, and he presents Zappa's earlier home and family life in more depth than anyone else has." Customer reviews on Amazon are not usable her as sources only actually reviews in print media. Blogs are also not sources we can use here esp in a BLP. The other review from Reed Business Info states "Miles hits the ups and downs of Zappa's life like a skilled composer in his own right, and he captures the contentious eras (from  the late 1950s on) in which Zappa's genius emerged. The result is a  penetrating look both at Zappa and at the social and political milieu  in which popular rock music stepped to the fore." I am assuming good faith but I think you are presenting opinion in contravention of  WP:NPOV Catapla (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know which reviews published at Amazon.com don't qualify as "published reviews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.236 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ones from newspapers, magazines and other secondary and reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia policies on citation. Catapla (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any specific references to other rock critics who are against Ayn Rand. The specify tag either should be restored or the reference deleted.

Miles makes no attempt to hide his views. If the article does not include information about this it does not accurately portray the subject. It appears that you trying to slant the article by taking this information out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.236 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you put some of the sources and quotes her first before stating he is a socialist etc on the BLP? I have never seen a reference to that except online in forums of nutters. 11:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Takes one "nutter" to know another. Miles' view: anyone who disagrees with me is "ultra-right wing." Catapla's (Catalpa?) view: anyone who disagrees with Miles is a "nutter." I guess all the people at Amazon who noted Miles' bias and left-wing slant (some of them liked the book anyway) are "nutters." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.236 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

politics
The header politics seems a bit redundant or unexplained in the main page article. Miles was a leader of the counterculture in the 1960s in the UK yet there are no mentions of this in the "Politics" section, rather it seems vague and refers to just two issues i.e Rush and Zappa being right wing and/or capitalists. There is no actual point being made. As Rush's Peart and Frank Zappa were/are right wing capitalists should the fact that a professional writer ie Barry Miles mentioning this be an issue at all on his biography? Is there an article that supports this as being important in this BLP (biographgy of a living person) see WP:BLP ? Should the header be changed or should the Zappa and Rush stuff just be removed as they seem minor issues in a biography? Catapla (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Miles
Professional biographers attempt to follow a journalistic ethic. They try to present facts about the subject and let the facts speak for themselves. Barry Miles regularly goes WAY BEYOND ethical journalism by injecting his own opinions in places where they are neither appropriate or necessary. It is not good enough for Barry Miles to allow a reader to come to his own conclusions. Miles insists on forcing his own conclusions on the reader whether the reader wants them or not. This is the very essence of propaganda masquerading as journalism. When Barry Miles rambles on about the evils of capitalism it speaks volumes about the anti-business prejudices of Barry Miles.

Once again Catalpa has fallen into the Miles trap and made the erroneous claim that Peart and Zappa are "right wing." But Catalpa can't present a shred of evidence to support the "right wing" label. If Catalpa wants to add information to the Politics section about Miles' left wing activism in the 1960s he is free to do this. When Catalpa tries to make a point out his belief that there is no point being made he really makes no point at all. He is just talking in circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.180.45 (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to Paul Barlow about recent edits in the Politics section (October 2014)
If you think that Neil Peart is right-wing (as Miles did) then you need to provide some evidence for this. Peart has never described himself that way and this is why Miles is completely wrong. Peart defines his own politics as does any individual. We do know that Peart has always described himself as a Libertarian. We also know that Libertarians are neither right-wing nor left-wing. If you are unclear on Libertarianism please read the Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Miles was clearly confused by his own left-wing prejudices. As do many others in the UK he confuses Libertarianism with the right-wing. Miles grew up with Socialism in post WWII Britain and by the 1970s that was all he had ever known. Being from Canada it's clear that Peart had a broader view. It is not for Miles or any other journalist to put words in the mouth of his interview subject. This is why he is known as an unprofessional and highly biased journalist. If Miles had listened to his subject he could have learned something.

BTW, the reason I let the part stand about the Sex Pistols is that Peart was exactly right. They WERE products of a Socialist state, just like Miles was. Perhaps you are too young to remember how decrepit Britain was in the 1970s after 30 years of the Labor Party government. No one needs to be right wing to oppose that kind of economic disaster. If you need some background please do some reading about the British economic crisis of the 1970s. You can start here: Postwar Britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondo66 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have to provide any evidence that Peart is right wing. I merely reported that Miles had said he was. It is wholly inappropriate to editorialise that this opinion is somehow false. I don't really think it's reasonable to say that "Peart defines his own politics" in the sense in which you appear to mean it, though of course his own statements can be included. He defines his own beliefs, but he can't control public characterisation of them. If Leon Trotsky had said he wasn't left wing that would not alter the fact the he fits the definition of "left wing" politics, and it would be perfectly correct to quote sources which said as much. However, this is an article about Miles, not about Peart. The section is about his views. Your rant, BTW, is itself an expression of views that would normally be characterised as right wing. The fact remains that you misused a source, which did not say what you used it to say. All it said was that Peart no longer used Randian rhetoric - 30-odd years later. That has no bearing on how accurate Miles' opinion of Peart was in the 70s. The economic crisis of the 1970s has f-all to do with the issue under discussion. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Further to Paul's response, your knowledge of British political history is shit, and you'd do better to read up on that than to lecture others on what they should read. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barry Miles. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727120023/http://www.brautigan.net/recordings.html to http://www.brautigan.net/recordings.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Co-author
I'm the co-author (credited in the small print) of the 1988 edition of Pink Floyd: A Visual Documentary ; and of the 1994 edition, not listed here. (Be aware that some sources conflate our names as "Miles Mabbett" - there is no such author.) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)