Talk:Kate & Anna McGarrigle

Fair use rationale for Image:Kamcgarrigle-st.jpg
Image:Kamcgarrigle-st.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Accent
Is their distinctive accent when singing French typical of Montreal Quebecois, or a result of their mixed-language upbringing?89.168.186.193 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Before Tomorrow?
What does the film Before Tomorrow have to do with Kate and Anna McGarrigle? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Debut album was released in 'January 1976', not in '1975'.
Dear fellow editors, I am leaving the present note out of courtesy to other editors interested in this article. Today, an IP user has altered the release date of the debut album from '1976' to '1975', here. This is most certainly a good faith edit, and I can understand why this could happen: However, there is good evidence that the release date of '1975' is an error, for the following reasons:
 * firstly, the album was definitely recorded over a period of 9 months in 1974-75, as per Anna McGarrigle's own recollection: "We began recording in New York City in late 1974 and finished nine months later in LA, with Joe [Boyd] and Greg [Prestopino] co-producing";
 * secondly, the sleeve notes of recent CD re-releases, such as my copy of the three-CD Kate & Anna McGarrigle / Tell My Sister, say "Originally released 1975 on Warner Bros. Records; remastered 2011".
 * the sleeve notes of my copy of the vinyl album [Warner Bros. Records K56218 / BS2862] shows a copyright of '1976'. (I purchased that original, vinyl album in early 1976, shortly after its release).
 * Dane Lanken's book, Kate and Anna McGarrigle Songs and Stories, shows three additional indicators:
 * A summary of this album's track listing, with a date stamp of January 1976 (page 30);
 * An article from the NY Times, dated 15 January 1976, about the album's recent release (page 30);
 * An article from Billboard, dated 17 January 1976, about the album's recent release (page 31);
 * Anna & Jane McGarrigle's book, Mountain City Girls, quotes Anna McGarrigle saying, on page 316: "In preparation for the tour to support our new record, which was due out in January 1976, Kate and I began rehearsals with a band in NYC."

Strictly speaking, the book sources could be considered unreliable, as per WP:VERIFY, since they rely on primary sources (Anna McGarrigle herself, and her husband Dane Lanken). However, their details are corroborated by the sleeve notes of my vinyl album. Therefore, I would conclude that, when re-printing the CDs, the record label simply conflated the date of the recording (i.e. the date of the copyright attached to most of the songs themselves) with the release date; it is an understandable error to have introduced, especially with the release date being so early in a new year.

I am therefore proposing to leave the current date of '1975' in place for a couple of days, to enable other fellow editors to respond to this note and offer their contributions. If nobody does, then I will revert the date back to '1976', and will also add the same reference tags I used here.

Finally, please note that I had already supplied both book references in the article on the album itself (Kate & Anna McGarrigle) and have now added a ref tag for the sleeve notes from the original, vinyl album also (as I did in the reference list below).

Thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Pdebee, I know it's worthless, but have you seen the entry at discogs? Certainly the UK issue was 1976 - but the other 7 which all say 1975? Did they really get that so wrong? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin,
 * Thank you for your response and for supplying the link to the discos entries. To answer your question: no, I hadn't seen these entries. So, what would you propose we do? We have conflicting sources, with evidence from one of the artists confirming a release date of 'January 1976', and newspaper clips indicating the same date. It is, of course, possible that the 'discogs' entries were all replicated from a single erroneous source, but such an argument would never wash, as it would be pure conjecture.
 * We could mention: "Some sources state a release date of 1975, while others mention January 1976". This way, we only point to the conflicting evidence without having to take one side or the other.
 * Looking forward to your advice. Thank you.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 00:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure. Your evidence looks very convincing. Although discogs is widely used, it's still regarded as a bit unreliable, almost WP:SPS. So I think your newspaper and book citations would certainly trump it. But then those dates also seem to fit - as its' Warner Bros., an earlier US release (and elsewhere) would be quite normal. UK newspapers would certainly refer to a UK release date. Maybe we should add a footnote? But non-discogs source(s) would be needed first, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Martin, Thank you for your response. Well, I am as diffident as you are about what's the best thing to do. I certainly don't want to push '1976' against evidence of sources stating '1975' but, like you, I find the sources stating the former more convincing than those citing the latter. I also share your views about 'discogs', but other editors will rely on its contents and simply revert '1976' back to '1975' at some future date. About your mention that: UK newspapers would certainly refer to a UK release date; I didn't have UK newspapers, and the ones I quoted above are US newspapers (NY Times and Billboard). So, I did a bit more searching this morning and found three other sources for the '1976' date (see the "quoted text" in the citations themselves, in section References below):
 * Kate McGarrigle's obituary in The Guardian;


 * Kate & Anna McGarrigle's page at Robert Christgau's website;


 * The date of Kate & Anna McGarrigle's debut album is mentioned as '1976' in Mark Brend's book on Lowell George, Rock and Roll Doctor.

In summary, and to be fair all round, I'd like to propose that we mention something like:
 * "various sources use the recording date–1975–also as the release date, although reliable sources in books and newspaper articles, both in the US and the UK, indicate or cite '1976' and 'January 1976' as the release date."

As you suggested, I could draft something like that in a footnote, and also include all six citations I put together here. Would that approach have your support? Thank you for your help and advice with this, Martin. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Patrick. Your approach seems eminently sensible and has my full support. I admire your diligence. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again-again Martin,
 * Thank you for your supportive response and your kind words. OK, then; I'll go ahead on that basis. All I need to do now is learn how to use footnotes, and I'll ping you one final time when it's done (after lunch, though).
 * With kind regards for now;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martin, ✅! It took some time to get it all together here with all the citations, including your helpful link to the 'discogs' page. I am pleased to have learned how to use the template that combines 'Notes' with 'References'. Please kindly let me know if the outcome is acceptable, in which case I'll copy the same code into the article on the Kate & Anna McGarrigle (album) also. Thank you once again for your guidance, advice and support, Martin. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very impressed. Well done! Looks fine to me. My only suggestion would be maybe to put the note after the title, just to make it look neater? But there are probably strict rules on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again Martin,
 * Thank you very much for your prompt reply and kind words. I had initially thought of locating the note after the title because, like you, I thought it would look tidier. It then occurred to me that it might be better to place it right next to the date, seeing as this is the item that might remain a topic of dispute, and also because that's the item that we are clarifying in the footnote. But I'm more than happy to change it as you suggest, if you think this would be required as per some editorial rule or guideline.
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Your rationale makes perfect sense. So I'm happy to leave it and see if anyone else has other suggestions. We may, of course hit on "a cast iron source" eventually, which explains all the variation! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again Martin,
 * Excellent; thanks Martin. You're right about "a cast iron source", although Anna McGarrigle's quote from page 316 of MCG sounds compelling enough for me, even though she's a primary source; after all she was there.
 * Thank you also for the wave of fixes you've just applied. With your permission, I'll add "a.k.a. French Record" alongside Entre Lajeunesse et la sagesse, since it was actually the original title of the album when it came out on vinyl, and "Entre Lajeunesse et la sagesse" was only the title of the first track and didn't feature at all on the vinyl album cover. It is only when the album was re-released on CD (2003) that it acquired Entre Lajeunesse et la sagesse as a sort of subtitle. In fact, to be totally pedantic about it, the original album title was french album, with the f and a in lower case. However, I won't attempt to be that literal, as there will probably be no end of edits to change it back and forth between cases.
 * Thanks once again for all your helpful assistance with '1975' > '1976', Martin; I enjoyed working with you.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean enjoyed (past tense)?! I would not want to shed a premature tear. There is no escape now, haha! By all means change the album title back if that's clearer. Sorry, I must have missed that in the article! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we were done...
 * I did apply the change ("a.k.a. French Record"), only to be reverted immediately by ...
 * Take care, Martin, and thanks once again for all your helpful assistance.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)