Talk:Scarabus

Fair use rationale for Image:IGBscarabus1.jpg
Image:IGBscarabus1.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 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IGBsacarabus2.jpg
Image:IGBsacarabus2.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 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre for this album
An editor has twice (thrice?) reverted my edit that changed this album's genre from "jazz-rock fusion" to "pop, rock", using AllMusic as a source. The editor claimed that the Allmusic entry labels this album "jazz-rock fusion". The editor piped the link "jazz fusion" so that it reads "jazz-rock fusion".

This is wrong on this article and all articles because there is no such thing as "jazz-rock fusion". There is "jazz rock" and there is "jazz fusion". Pick one.

Second, does AllMusic classify this album as jazz rock or jazz fusion or neither? In the left column of the AllMusic article, below the album cover, Scarabus by the Ian Gillan Band is classified "pop" and "rock" by genre and "British metal", "hard rock", and "heavy metal" in style. Some people on Wikipedia have claimed that these labels are added by readers, not AllMusic editors, and can therefore be ignored. I would need proof, and I disagree with taking the extreme position of ignoring the genres beneath the album cover. My experience with AllMusic is that these classifications are more reliable than not, particularly in the context of music journalism, but I also know that AllMusic makes mistakes, as we all do.

Moving to the article itself by Stephen Thomas Erlewine, one finds comment that the Ian Gillan's Band previous album, Clear Air Turbulence, was "a full-fledged exploration into jazz fusion and prog rock". He adds next "Scarabus rocks considerably harder than its predecessor, but there are still flourishes of their more experimental inclinations, particularly how they easily fall into a funk fusion groove". So far, then, "rocks hard", "experimental inclinations", and "funk fusion groove". Rocks hard speaks for itself. Experimental can mean anything. I'm unaware of any genre named "funk fusion" but I think this was more an attempt to define a kind of groove, not a kind of genre. Soon after, Erlewine writes "the music breaks into contrived jazzy instrumentals." The adjective "jazzy" is not an affirmation that is a jazz album. A car or a suit can be jazzy. The New Oxford American Dictionary ed. by Erin McKean says that jazzy is "bright, colorful, and showy, as in jazzy ties."

Next, "Compared to Clear Air Turbulence, Scarabus does sound like unadulterated hard rock". This sentence pushes the album further from the previous jazz album and toward classifying the album as rock, not just rock, but "unadulterated hard rock" that is clearly different from their jazz fusion album. A bit later: "most of the songs sound like excuses to rock."

Put simply, nowhere does Erlewine calls this a jazz album or a jazz fusion album or a jazz rock album or a jazz-rock-fusion album. Going by this source, the evidence suggests that this is much more a rock album than a jazz album, which is why I edited it the way I did and why I removed it from Wikiproject Jazz, where some 5500 articles out of 25000 need immediate cleanup. Mislabeling articles does everyone a disservice. Vmavanti (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Your issue with the project-wide consensus that the genre sidebar at Allmusic is unreliable is something you would need to take up at the WikiProject, rather than at individual articles. It's a fairly long-held, firm consensus as far as I know, so I see no reason to subvert it because you don't agree with it. My use of the piped link was simply a reversion, not any design on my part, as a cursory glance would tell you. I accept your point about the term 'jazz fusion', but it does have to be used consistently, rather than just in the infobox. Indeed, pick one.


 * The idea that Scarabus is a pop album could only be held by someone who knows nothing about pop, or who has never heard the album. Rock or hard rock is fine in the infobox in my view, alongside jazz fusion. The idea that any album could be pop, rock, hard rock and heavy metal is farcical, and I suspect it's that kind of lunacy that has rendered the genre sidebar unreliable in many people's view. I am also unaware of any genre called funk fusion, but bearing in mind this was a jazz fusion band (as per their previous album), I think it reasonable to link the term 'fusion' here with the nature of the previous album. I think it tenuous to suggest that a music reviewer's use of the word 'jazzy' was not referring to jazz as a genre. I personally believe (if my opinion matters) that the characteristics of jazz fusion as explained in the parent article – "unconventional time signatures with elaborate chord progressions, melodies, and counter-melodies" – do suit this album. Chart-friendly pop it is not. But you may disagree. The previous album is definitely jazzier, but Scarabus still has pronounced jazz leanings.


 * Gillan himself in his autobiography describes his frustration with new material at that time as "more fusion shit", which he was trying to get away from. That's why he broke the band up, retaining only Colin Towns, the member most inclined towards straight hard rock, which was much in evidence straight off the bat when Gillan began.


 * As I say, I have no issue with 'rock' or 'hard rock', but it is absolutely inaccurate to describe Scarabus as a straight hard rock album, as an AC/DC album might be (let alone pop, as an Abba album might be). Hard rock albums simply do not have a 'funk fusion groove' as Erlewine puts it. So I think the long-standing jazz fusion genre should stay. I have no issue with the order of genres if you want to rearrange them. The article's presence or absence from the Jazz Wikiproject does not concern me. I hope we can find a compromise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I spent a long time writing my previous post, painstakingly going one sentence at a time, one word at a time, through the AllMusic entry which you used as a source. And you conclude with...your opinion. Wikipedia isn't about your opinion, your interests, your desires, your likes, your dislikes, your sense of justice or injustice. You will have to accept that. You can not say that a source calls an album jazz fusion when it says nothing of the kind. Please respond to my post. Please avoid matters that are tangential or irrelevant. The only subject we are supposed to be addressing on this Talk Page in this thread is the content of the AllMusic article by Erlewine—not whether it is true, whether you agree with it, or whether you like it. I have demonstrated clearly what Erlewine clearly has said: that the previous album could be called jazz fusion but that this one can not. That is the only subject at hand for the moment. Misrepresenting a source is a serious breach of Wikipedia rules, ethics, and common sense, and I have no intention of doing so here or anywhere else, no matter how trivial the subject.


 * You're starting to confuse me here. You have said more than once that there is no such thing as jazz-rock fusion, yet you have reverted my edit which addressed that. Now we have jazz fusion in the infobox because you say jazz-rock fusion doesn't exist, yet you insist on having it right there in the lead sentence. Forgive me if I have missed some clever nuance there. I'm sorry you feel you have wasted your time writing your post. The consensus at the wikiproject is that the Allmusic side bar shouldn't be used. If you don't like that, that really is of no interest to me. Have a read of the Wikipedia rules on consensus, and take it up at the relevant place, which is not here. In the meantime, "pop" isn't going to be in the infobox.


 * As for my argument, maybe I can put it in less complicated terms, reiterating my references to Erlewine's piece. I have said that Erlewine refers to a funk fusion groove and jazzy instrumentals (there aren't any instrumentals on the album, but you knew that). He also says that Gillan only has "the occasional chance" to "simply rock". That is enough for me, given that IGB was a jazz fusion band (and you accept that), to say that a) jazz fusion is an acceptable genre for this album based on this source, and that b) "rock" alone is not. If you think Erlewine has "clearly said" that this album cannot be called jazz fusion, I await your quote from his piece "clearly" saying that. I would hate to think you were misrepresenting a source, so humour me and quote Erlewine saying it cannot be called a jazz fusion album. I have attempted to compromise with you, and I hope you will reconsider your refusal to do so up to now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't want "jazz-rock-fusion" in the lede because there is no such thing. There is jazz rock and there is jazz fusion. The former applies more to rock bands who try to incorporate elements of jazz into rock, while the latter is the opposite, i.e. incorporating rock elements into jazz. So that's why I would revert "jazz rock fusion" wherever it appears, because there is no such thing.


 * You don't accept the sidebar. I do. Nevertheless, I accept that occasionally there are discrepancies between the sidebar and the content, and in those relatively rare cases, then some kind of consensus may have to be reached if there is disagreement. But this is not one of those times. There are close calls. But this not one of them.


 * The subject at hand, then, is what Erlewine says if Erlewine is going to be used as a source. How do we classify Scarabus? I already addressed what he said. Here it is again, briefly, in a different way. Do you equate "jazzy instrumentals" with "this is a jazz fusion album"? I don't. No one does. As for "jazzy", I gave you the definition of that word.


 * I gave Erlewine's strong distinction between this album and the previous album, Clear Air Turblence. The previous album he called "a full-fledged exploration into jazz fusion and prog rock". Note: both "jazz fusion" AND "prog rock". Not "that was a jazz fusion album" but more an album that explored both jazz fusion and prog rock. Hardly an affirmation. Nevertheless, Erlewine goes to great pains to distinguish the quasi-jazz fusion of Clear Air Turbulence with the rock of Scarabus. After the former, he writes, the band did "a 180", meaning the band turned 180 degrees—the opposite direction of what they were doing, which was flirting with jazz fusion. A desire to experiment remains. Let me tell you that a desire to experiment does not equate to jazz. Nearly every pop song on the radio has a guitar solo in which there was some improvising. That doesn't make it jazz. Every musician ought to experiment some. That doesn't make it jazz. Jazz is much more than experiment and improvisation and long songs. You find those in the band Yes, and no serious person ever called Yes jazz fusion. They are a perfect example of prog rock.


 * Moreover, Erlewine calls the album's "experimental inclinations", not an affirmation of jazz fusion, but mere "flourishes". An inclination is a tendency, not a full expression. A flourish is a small part, not the whole. Back to the New Oxford American Dictionary for "flourish": 1) a fanfare by brass instruments. Are there brass instruments on this album? No. Regardless, a fanfare is a short passage, usually an introduction. 2) "an ornate music passage". An ornate passage in music is "using many ornaments such as grace notes and trills." So, ornamentation: extra, part, not the whole, not the essence, not representative but an exception. A grace note or trill is almost like a diacritical mark on a word. So, 3) "an improvised addition played especially at the beginning or end of a composition." Here may be cause for celebration because the word "improvisation" occurs, and improvisation means jazz, right? No. The dictionary says "addition", tacked on to the beginning or end. Again, a small part, not the whole, not the defining characteristic but an exception.


 * This album, Erlewine writes, "rocks considerably harder than its predecessor", Clear Air Turblence, which flirted with a hybrid of jazz fusion and prog rock. Now, with Scarabus, they make a 180 turn, away from that album and toward rocking harder. "Compared to Clear Air Turbulence, Scarabus does sound like unadulterated hard rock". At this point the evidence is piling up that this is a undiluted rock album, possibly hard rock, but quite different from the previous one that flirted with jazz fusion, one merely diluted in fusion tendencies. The word "fusion appears" twice only: once to describe their last album as a diluted exploration of jazz fusion and prog rock, and the second to say the band occasionally "falls into a funk fusion groove". Falling, accidentally, into a groove is far from an affirmation of jazz fusion. Falling in funk fusion groove means they weren't playing funk or fusion. They were playing some kind of rock with funk elements, such as popping a bass string. This is far from even hinting that this is a jazz fusion album. It's nothing of the sort, according to Erlewine.

Vmavanti (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope this is enough evidence for you, as I don't want to repeat myself a third time. So what do I want to put in the genre field? What Erlewine says: rock. Not jazz rock. Not jazz fusion. This is a rock album, though perhaps a strange one. Oddness itself doesn't mean jazz, though I can see why people make that mistake.


 * You criticised one of my previous posts, claiming that it consisted of little more than my opinions, yet here I am reading one of yours which consists of a whole lot of your opinions. It really doesn't matter at all that you think a desire to experiment doesn't equate to jazz. It's irrelevant, as is any mention of Yes. I understand you have very strong views about what jazz is, and what jazz isn't. But those views don't matter here. Your views on jazz fusion are not the only views on jazz fusion, nor are they incontrovertible. You are talking almost entirely about Scarabus in relation to Clear Air Turbulence. Erlewine can do that because it might be relevant to his intention. But that is absolutely not what an album infobox is here to do. Other albums have zero relevance to this one in Wikipedia terms. Zero. All we are trying to do here is to include genres in the infobox which users may consider have a bearing on this album, and which roughly describe this album, and not in relation to any other specific work. You are claiming that this is an undiluted rock album. While you probably know a lot about jazz, you clearly know nothing about rock if that is truly what you think. My opinion? Yes. And it's no less valid than yours, whether you choose to believe that or not.


 * This: "Do you equate "jazz instrumentals" with "this is a jazz fusion album"? I don't. No one does. As for "jazzy", I gave you the definition of that word." is incredibly patronising. "No one does." No, you don't. This is what I mean about just citing your opinion. You gave me one definition of "jazzy"; the one which suits your argument. Here's another one, in fact the first definition in the dictionary I looked in: "of, resembling, or in the style of jazz." He used 'jazzy' to describe this album, at least in part. In plain English.


 * "Falling, accidentally, into a groove..." Says who? Who said it was accidental? You. Nobody else. Not Erlewine. Were you there when it was recorded? I doubt it. Don't make things up.


 * You don't want to repeat yourself a third time, well, what you will have to do then is to compromise. I have asked you twice already to do so, and you have utterly refused. Wikipedia is about working together and coming to an agreement, not repeating your opinions ad infinitum and boring others into submission. We disagree. Nothing's going to change that, and I doubt very much anyone else will chime in with their views on what is a fairly obscure album. I strongly suggest, in order to avoid wasting any more of our time dissecting Erlewine's prose (which is clearly inconclusive for our purposes), or taking this to third opinion boards and other unnecessary drama, that we aim for inclusivity with these genres. If you like, I'm happy with "Rock, progressive rock, jazz fusion", i.e. making jazz fusion the lesser of the three. We can leave this article out of any jazz categories if that's what you want. Drop the stick. Genres are subjective. Wikipedia talk pages are chock full of people saying "this album is / is not genre X, I know what I'm talking about, just face it." Please do not add to those numbers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out why you are making this so complicated. It's so elementary. I'm not giving opinions. I'm giving you facts and the evidence of the text. If you can't distinguish a fact from an opinion, you're not much good to Wikipedia, because what we are interested here is the facts. If genres were completely subjective, there wouldn't be a field for them in the infobox. Nor would there be books and critics explaining what the genres are. Some things simply are objectively true. Do you not know that?


 * If you are going to use an article as a source, it most certainly is relevant what that article says. It's the center of the discussion! I have no idea how to respond to your assertion that the source is irrelevant or to your claim that the previous album is irrelevant. Of course it is relevant! Erlewine is using it as a contrast. But you rarely address the text. You rarely address the points I make, and when you do, you skew them to suit your own purposes. When is "falling" not a word for lack of intention? Does it escape you that the review is a negative one? Surely you can understand that if an album is going to be classified as jazz fusion, then the words themselves must appear somewhere in the text, right? So you think that the inclusion of one use of the adjective "jazzy" necessarily means this is a jazz album? It does not. That is not an opinion. It's a matter of using language correctly. Nowhere in this article is it called a jazz fusion album. That is not an opinion. It's a simple matter of knowing how to read and knowing what words mean. I am most certainly not going to distort someone's article, saying something that it does not, simply because you cannot accept it. This is not about you.

Vmavanti (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You bring in tangents and digressions. You refuse to discuss the subject. You are not discussing in good faith. I think it's time to bring in other voices. If you persist in personal attacks and you refuse to discuss the subject, I will have to consult an admin. You really leave me with no choice. This is a very simple matter.


 * Just do it already. If an admin can find a personal attack, then I will apologise for it. Your last post certainly appears to contain a few though. Your patronising tone ("It's so elementary") is extremely tiresome, and my patience with your methods of "argument" has expired. Your refusal to compromise is startling. It's all 'my opinions are facts and yours are rubbish, and if you can't see I'm right then you can't read / you're stupid / you're no use to Wikipedia' – I've heard it all before. I am well aware this isn't about me, thank you so much for the clarification.


 * Contrasts with other albums are not relevant to genres in this article's infobox. Scarabus is brutally thrashy heavy metal compared to This One's for You and that isn't relevant either. In any case, the (already agreed) inclusion of 'rock' as a genre for Scarabus already displays the progression from CAT in that direction. I have addressed the text, frequently. 'Falling' is not always accidental, particularly in music. In any case, Erlewine might be a reliable source, but he is not a reliable source to claim an artist's intention, and neither are you. Does it escape you that it's utterly irrelevant that the review is negative? What bloody difference does that make to the genre? Or maybe you think because it isn't jazz then it must be crap? I have never said it was a jazz album. I am advocating using "jazz fusion" as one of three genres in the infobox, because I believe there are jazz fusion elements on the album and I believe the source backs that up. We agree that IGB is or was a jazz fusion band, and Erlewine uses the words "fusion" and "jazzy" in his text, however you would like to dress that up as something else. I have always discussed the subject (what else have I discussed?). You are accusing me of bad faith with no justification. Read WP:AGF. You accuse me of things you have done yourself. You have still not addressed your contradictory editing as I asked you to do earlier. This is a simple content issue on which you refuse to compromise, nothing more. Find an admin and let's cease this abominably tedious badinage. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I see you canvassing your jazz buddy, and I raise you this doozie of a personal attack . Bring an admin in now and get off my case. The fact that you have accused me of personal attacks, and have elsewhere compared me to a seven year old, speaks volumes for your integrity, sir. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * And I've just seen you've reverted the article to your preferred version while this discussion was ongoing, and you didn't even mention it. That's really something. Leave it at the original version until the admin arrives, and he/she can take a look at your behaviour as well as the topic in hand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A few more sources, , including one that states IGB's output was "three albums’ worth of jazz-rock, Child In Time, Clear Air Turbulence and Scarabus." . Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The subject at hand is the Erlewine source. Here it is. Show me where in this article he calls this a jazz fusion album.


 * "Ian Gillan never sounded entirely comfortable in the first incarnation of the Ian Gillan Band, quite likely because his colleagues were more interested in progressive rock than he was. Not that Gillan was adverse to prog -- after all this was the Ian Gillan Band, and if he didn't want to move in this direction, he wouldn't -- but he never sounded entirely comfortable with it. That much was certain from Clear Air Turbulence, a full-fledged exploration into jazz fusion and prog rock where the band sounded at ease and the singer sounded tentative, which was perhaps the reason IGB did a 180 for their third album, Scarabus. Released a mere six months after Clear Air Turbulence, Scarabus rocks considerably harder than its predecessor, but there are still flourishes of their more experimental inclinations, particularly how they easily fall into a funk fusion groove. Their presence only emphasizes how Gillan sounds best when he's simply rocking. And he does get the occasional chance to do that here, but too often the riffs are transparently complicated, not catchy, or the music breaks into contrived jazzy instrumentals. Compared to Clear Air Turbulence, Scarabus does sound like unadulterated hard rock, but it never rocks with abandon; it always sounds self-conscious. That self-consciousness is only enhanced by the lack of strong material -- "Mad Elaine" does come close to being memorable, but most of the songs sound like excuses to rock. Even if Scarabus is a failure, it is interesting for longtime Gillan fans, since it does offer proof that IGB were talented musicians who just couldn't quite deliver the hard rock their singer craved. Listening to Scarabus in retrospect, it's little wonder that he disbanded IGB after this album. [The initial Virgin CD reissue of Scarabus contained a live version of "My Baby Loves Me" as a bonus track; Eagle/Spitfire's 1999 reissue retained the bonus track.]"Vmavanti (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, the "subject at hand"... I'm not playing this stupid game any more. The Erlewine source is what it is, and it's an agreed source for rock or progressive rock, whatever you want. You don't like it for jazz fusion or whatever, I don't care. We have the Planet Rock source for jazz rock and that's incontrovertible. I see you have conveniently ignored the personal attack you threw my way, and the canvassing – maybe that's why you don't want to involve an admin any more. I might involve one myself though if this crap continues. I'll add the PR source in due course, unless you'd like to do that yourself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like your attitude. I suspect that you are still a young teenager who isn't ready to work here on Wikipedia, and maybe I should have taken that into account. Your suggestion that I am playing a game is wrong. There's nothing here I consider I game. You have misread my posts if you have found something other than seriousness in them. If you think it's personal for me, or that I am personally against you, you're wrong. When you make accusations of any kind, you better be prepared to back them up. Maybe you haven't learned to do that yet in school, but here we analyze sources if we are going to use them. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, ignorant, or making a mistake. These are opportunities to learn, make progress, and move forward. Live and learn. There's nothing wrong with disagreement provided it is honest disagreement. I have repeatedly presented textual evidence to you, and you have responded with anger and accusations. That is not a debate or a discussion. There would not even be a discussion if you had read the text properly without reading between the lines. I didn't involve others because I couldn't escape how trivial this discussion has been, how obvious, and how one sided. It would have reflected poorly on me to bring in busy people and have them draw the same conclusion as me in five seconds. If you feel you have been treated unfairly, by all means seek an admin. I am certain an admin would agree with what I have said here regarding what Erlewine says. I have noticed, by the way, that there are many British people who misunderstand jazz and often conflate it with progressive rock. I didn't realize how bad it was until I started working on Wikipedia. So I have had these kinds of debates before and they are often just as contentious and pointless. I admit I remain baffled by the extreme responses. I expected more from the Brits: more stoicism, politeness, humility, intelligence, and perhaps most of all, facility with language. I don't know why so much heat is generated over something so trivial as the classification of a rock album. I don't know why there is such obstinacy and insistence on being aligned in some way with jazz. It's just music, that's all. It's not life or death. So you were wrong. So what? I've been wrong plenty of times in my long life. The way to get over it is to learn from your mistakes.


 * I really don't like yours. You seem insistent on ad hominem comments and trying to belittle me in an astonishingly patronising way. A short glance at my user page will tell you how long I've been here. I will revert your edits because again, you only fancy your own preferred version and this discussion is not over. I have presented another source for jazz rock and you have ignored it. Why, I can only guess. I will add it, and if you remove it, then I will take this entire thing to an admin. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have an attitude. I'm a straight shooter. Honesty and candor throw some people off. What am I supposed to conclude when someone doesn't respond to what I'm saying? How do I know they have read and understood what I wrote? You don't analyze. You react. That's what I see: reaction. That's not ad hominem. It's rooted in the evidence of your comments and methods, specifically in your refusal to engage in a discussion about the subject. You get insulted when I'm being serious. You get sniffy, as though a response were beneath you, but I'm sitting there wondering what the problem is. You think you are responding to me properly, but you are not. Why not try something like "You seem to be saying" or "Erlewine wrote" or "I agree with the phrase" or "I disagree when he says" or "I understand his point about"? That would be normal and proper and productive and in line with the rules of Wikipedia. I went through the Erlewine review one word at a time, even employing the dictionary to guarantee there was no misunderstanding. But what happened? You got insulted and you claimed I was attacking you (all while attacking me, by the way) You offered tangents and digressions but avoided the central subject. The exception was when you mentioned the use of the word "jazzy" which you concluded was proof that this was a jazz album, but then you went on a tirade and dropped the matter as quickly as you raised it. Erlewine makes a vital point by saying the band did a 180-degree turn from their last album. He explains his contrast and the characteristics of each album. I went over it and over it. How did you respond? By saying it's irrelevant. That's not discussing. That's avoiding.


 * You have said of me, "It's like talking to a seven year old," and then you claim not to have an attitude. We will agree to differ on that. There's a difference between honesty and candour, and plain rudeness. There are a number of inaccuracies in your last post. Ad hominem is calling me a seven year old, calling me a "young teenager who isn't ready to work on Wikipedia" when I have been here for nearly 13 years, talking about me still being in school, and for some bizarre reason, bringing my nationality into the discussion. Really, any admin would call this a content dispute, which is what it is, and tell us to seek mediation. Any admin would also be thinking about whether this is a conduct dispute or not, and if you genuinely thought an admin would agree with you in five seconds, you would have brought one in. I have backed up my accusations. I actually quoted you calling me a seven year old. Where is your response to that? I accused you of canvassing, with diff evidence. Where's your response to that? Forget it. Let's try a clarification of this situation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification
We have discussed this, although we disagree on the interpretation of the Erlewine source. We agree on its usefulness as a source for "rock". We disagree on its usefulness as a source for "jazz rock" or "jazz fusion". There's no getting around that – we disagree. There's also no sense in bashing away at each other, trying to make the other "see sense". It isn't going to happen. Bearing in mind it is I who believe that it is an adequate source for jazz fusion, and you completely refute that, then the discussion about that source is effectively over. There are only two of us, and an agreement to use that source to verify jazz fusion is not going to arise. So in the interests of progress, let's put aside that source as a source for jazz fusion. That's what you wanted. It does not mean I have changed my mind – it means there's not going to be any progress for us in that direction. Working on Wikipedia is about working together to find a compromise. It is not about "So you were wrong." Wikipedia is not about winning. I am surprised you are still here if that is the way you operate. If you want me to admit I am wrong in my interpretation of that source, neither of us will live long enough for you to see that. I have made no "mistakes", and I do not claim that you are wrong in your interpretation of the source. We just disagree. But your position makes it unconstructive to keep flogging that particular dead horse.

It also does not mean this whole discussion is over. I have brought in another source for jazz rock, the Planet Rock source. I put it here and you ignored it. I raised it twice more and you ignored it both times. I put it in the article and you removed it, saying it had not been discussed. It is you who will not discuss it, not I. So you refuse to discuss a source, then remove it because it has not been discussed. I find that disruptive and frustrating. I politely request that we discuss that source, given that the Erlewine source will not be used as a source for jazz rock or jazz fusion under the current circumstances. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We're not going to step two without beginning step one. Changing the subject certainly benefits you. You've been changing the subject from the beginning. Or I should say, you've been avoiding the subject from the beginning. Other than a brief mention of the word "jazzy", you have skillfully avoided discussion. Show me the text. Show mean an example, actual words used by Erlewine that say this is a jazz fusion album. Not an implication or a suggestion, though if you see that, too, I will entertain your line of thinking. I agree that this is not about winning. But it is about accuracy. When you say that we disagree and that's the end of it, I disagree with that, because it suggests being accurate is impossible. Of course I think it's possible, otherwise I wouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Yes, I agree genres are subjective, partially subjective, not completely, not 100%. Besides, we don't need to approach that subject. Our subject is the content of Erlewine's article. What does he say? We can be much more objective about that provided we can both be impartial enough to separate fact from opinion.


 * You rarely respond to my posts. You rarely say "about this point" or "about that". I consider it progress when you at least mention something in my post, for example, the point about the British. But you took it the wrong way again! Why is always your conclusion that you are being insulted? Go back to what I wrote. Does my point about the British conflation of progressive rock with jazz fusion make sense to you? Is it possible that you and others who admire those musicians in the Canterbury scene (and those influenced by them) are mistaken in your definitions of jazz and jazz fusion? You say you have no idea why I brought up nationality. It's in the text! Please acknowledge that it's possible that you and others are wrong. Few people in America have even heard of the Canterbury scene. To most of us, progressive rock is Yes, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, early Genesis, and maybe even early Rush. No American I know has ever called them jazz or jazz fusion. The prog world is quite loose in its definitions. Andy Summers of The Police was gracious but baffled when he received a prog award a couple years ago. He said the Police were never prog, and they weren't, but he was a member of Soft Machine briefly. You see the failure to make proper distinctions? He left because Kevin Ayers was jealous of him. You see, I do know the names, because I have debated this before on Wikipedia with other Brits. Soft Machine, Robert Wyatt, Jakko Jakszyk up to Big Big Train and Porcupine Tree. I hope you can acknowledge that there may be a problem with the British definitions. Regardless, we're dealing with an American writer. That is the subject at hand. I have never refused to talk about it. When I try to steer the discussion back toward it, you get angry.


 * This is fast becoming the most peculiar exchange I've ever had on here. How many other ways can I say that I accept that the Erlewine source is not going to suit our purposes as a source for jazz fusion or jazz rock? Is that not effectively an agreement on our part? What, seriously, what else do you want me to say? If we are not going to use it, then it no longer matters. Why can't you understand that? Why are you demanding further discussion about something which we will never use? Why does my opinion on Erlewine's piece still matter to you? I don't understand. The more you ask, the less likely I am to bother explaining my reasoning to you again. It's there in my second post. You didn't accept it, so that's basically it, right? It can't be used for that purpose. What more is there to say?


 * I took your point about the British the wrong way? You said Brits conflate jazz with progressive rock because many Brits misunderstand it – how is that not a negative point about the British? Don't any Americans misunderstand it? The British and the Americans (I am assuming you are American) have different definitions for a thousand things, and neither are wrong. Why do you think Brits are just "wrong"? Can't you accept there are different ways of looking at things? It would be like me telling you that you misspelled 'candour' earlier. It's crass. In the US, the majority consider AC/DC to be heavy metal. Over here, the majority consider it hard rock. Why does one group have to be considered "mistaken"? I've been guilty of that before myself – 'Americans know nothing about hard rock' etc. Obviously Wikipedia is not only to be geared towards American points of view. To address your points about prog and Soft Machine and whatnot, I am not very familiar with Soft Machine, or the Canterbury Scene, so cannot comment. I don't know why you thought I was an admirer of that music. I am not ignoring your points. Those bands you cited as prog (King Crimson etc), from my limited knowledge of them, I would agree with you entirely. I would never consider those to be jazz fusion or jazz rock, but some people might, I don't know. From what I do know though, they bear little resemblance to the IGB in the mid-late 70s.


 * I might have hit on our differences here. An American might never consider Scarabus to be jazz fusion or jazz rock, but a Brit might well consider that it is. As I say, neither is wrong, it would just be that we have different definitions of the genre? But I suspect you just think Brits are plain wrong, or mistaken, or misunderstand it, and that is unhelpful. Do you accept that both our spellings of 'candor/candour' are correct? So maybe both British and American definitions of genres can also be correct? I do not acknowledge that the British view of jazz rock / prog is wrong, but I do acknowledge that it might be different from yours as an American.


 * I have never said you refused to talk about Erlewine. You have refused, and still refuse, to talk about the other source. There is absolutely no good reason why the Erlewine source should be seen as the only source available, which is what you are apparently doing. The Hotten source (British) says outright that the three IGB albums are jazz rock. Maybe that's why you don't want to discuss it. It's a reliable source and there is no reason whatsoever why it cannot be included. If you won't discuss it and you insist on removing it, then maybe we really are heading for the drama boards. I would like to think that two sentient adults could sort this out together – you are clearly not stupid, so let's find some common ground and move on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I misunderstood how you settled the Erlewine matter in your mind, perhaps because I was waiting for an explanation. Or revelation. That's my fault and I apologize. I have made other inappropriate remarks due to miscommunication. I remain curious about what you see in the article that suggests jazz fusion, but perhaps I can't ever know. Thank you, too, for discussing the possibility that England and America define genres differently. I'm convinced that something's going on here in the overlapping of British progressive rock and jazz fusion that either hasn't been explored much at all or hasn't been explored...by me. That could be fertile ground. I disagree that the English Wikipedia always favors an American viewpoint. I have been surprised to encounter many subtle and not so subtle differences with foreigners on Wikipedia that appear to be rooted in language, culture, nationality. As one person said to me, "separated by a common language". It might be better to have separate Wikipedias for England, Canada, Australia, and the U.S. But that, too, is beside the point and not my business. From a disinterested point of view, my exchanges with Brits have been fascinating and educational. I have tremendous respect for England and I suspect most Americans do, too. But I disagree that it's an insult to say that the British misunderstand jazz and jazz fusion by conflating it with progressive rock. Not all do, but some do, because I've seen it. How can the Police get a Prog award? I am long past the advertisers' demographic, but I've never heard AC/DC called heavy metal, and I more or less grew up hearing AC/DC on an Album Oriented Rock radio station. I vaguely recall critics grousing when Jethro Tull kept winning Grammy Awards, but more often than not the Grammys are overrated anyway (like all awards?). I was wrong to assume that you were assuming the Gillan band was part of the Canterbury Scene and that you were pushing in that direction. Usually when I debate jazz fusion v. progressive rock, that comes up, and I didn't know about it until I joined Wikipedia. If my persistence seems unreasonable, consider it in that context and in the context of trying to chip away at over 5000 articles on the Wikiproject Cleanup Listing. Whack a mole. I have other thoughts about why the suggestion to "let go of jazz" gets interpreted as a slight, but I will restrict myself to one point. Wynton Marsalis in his rhetoric and his talent has done a great sales job for twenty years, convincing practically the whole world that jazz is an art form, an elevated pursuit, almost a religion, worthy of a reverence previously reserved for classical music, performed in great halls, analyzed in classrooms, discussed in somber tones, and pursued by people with many letters trailing their names. I listen to different kinds of music, and not nearly as often as I used to. I chose to work on jazz because it looked like there was a need and because I thought I could avoid debate. I much prefer avoidance.


 * Apology accepted, no problem. I think it's very difficult for someone on one side or the other to full grasp the way certain concepts are understood on the other side of the pond. There is certainly something going on in that sense. I suppose, rightly or wrongly, some ideas take hold in one place and not the other, and some factions will run with those ideas, ultimately creating different opinions of the same term. I have long suspected a certain snobbery in the progressive rock world here that may go some way to explaining a desire amongst its fans in the past to associate it with the technically complex world of jazz fusion. Even possibly a desire to create a division between American prog and a "purer", "more serious", specifically English prog. I speculate, but in any case, such views can become accepted as fact, in time, in the circles in which they originated. Thus a distinction is created between the UK and the US. But it goes across the board, not just with music. I certainly found some things hard even when I dated a girl from the US. Some things I never understood. "Separated by a common language" is a very apt description. As you suggest, some people get things wrong. I have no idea why the Police got a Prog award – that is a mystery to me. As for AC/DC, there was very recently a debate at Back in Black, after which 'heavy metal' was put in the infobox. People found enough sources (mostly American) to engineer a consensus, and that was that. It's still wrong, but I was bulldozed. I have to accept that lots of people over there consider it that way, although it pains me. The Canterbury Scene is fairly obscure here too now, although it has a legion of very avid fans. You either worship it or you've never heard of it, generally. My interest in IGB came largely through John Gustafson and Mark Nauseef rather than Gillan himself, although I respect the guy's work. I accept your explanation for your persistence; that does make sense. I also understand how jazz has had built around it the reverence you describe. Although my appreciation of jazz in its purer forms is underdeveloped, I greatly respect it as an art form. I admire the technical brilliance, vastly complex musical structures and the undying influence it exercises upon other genres. It has added flavour to many, many otherwise bland areas of music. I am very glad we understand each other better. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Album cover
The original 1977 album cover is the version where the band are backlit. The "alternative cover" should be the 1978 US fantasy artwork cover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavydavy68 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)