Talk:Scott Walker (singer)

?
surprised to find no information re his personal life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.145.82 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholism
Occasionally one finds in press coverage an allusion to a struggle with alcoholism, and in the 30 Century Man documentary Walker mentions that after the 1960s came "a whole lot of drinking". Perhaps these personal struggles could be added to the article, assuming appropriate citations could be found? It would certainly help explain his artistic changes in the early '70s. 188.24.74.173 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Popularity
"their popularity and fan base is said to have exceeded The Beatles in the UK and Europe"

Said by whom? I was there in the 60s, fully aware of the pop scene, and the statement is ridiculous. Compared to John Paul George & Ringo, The Fab Four, The Boys, The Moptops, The Beatles, whatever you want to call them, the Walker Bros were all but irrelevant. They couldn't even write their own tunes so their wasn't even a "Lennon-McCartney" comparison.

76.103.116.3 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an overstatement, but in 1967 there were more people in the Walker Brothers Fan Club in the UK than there were in the (official) Beatles Fan Club. Also several of the Walker Brothers songs were written by the group. Nearly all of "Scott 3", half of "Til The Band Comes In", all of "Scott 4", "Climate of Hunter", "Tilt" and "The Drift" was written by Scott. I realise none of these songs compare with those great Lennon-McCartney compositions like "Twist and Shout", "Roll Over Beethoven", "Rock'n'Roll Music"... er... "You Really Got A Hold On Me"... These pages shouldn't be written by and for fans. Nor should they be written by people who want to bend/ ignore the facts because they don't like the artist. That said, this page is crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.74.2 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how any points ventured in that rather schitzophrenic retort help validate your position in any way. If you are so irritated by people who bend the facts to suit their own purposes then I fail to see why you would cite cover versions The Beatles performed early in their career as some sort of evidence against a largely laughable claim made on this page. The Beatles had ceased recording cover versions before The Walker Brothers had even released their first album. By 1967 they had issued four albums comprised entirely of original material, each of which was massively influential on the music world internationally. And why you would mention The Drift et al is beyond me as this was recorded 30 years after the period we are discussing. These pages shouldn't be written by and for fans indeed.Tetsuo the cat (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a person who listens to both the Beatles and Scott Walker intently, it's inane to compare the cultural influence of the Walker Brothers to the Beatles in the late 60s. That particular comparison to the popularity of the Beatles based on fan club size is made in the trailer for the documentary 30 Century Man. A "fanclub" is not really a good measure of the influence of a musician, but then again neither are sales. In any case, it's apparent that the Beatles were ubiquitous and known by the general public, whereas Scott Walker was/is probably not.

That being said, there is no need to diminish Scott Walker's early accomplishments and musical ability. He was a proficient bass guitarist and studied Gregorian chant, both of which are difficult to do without reading music, but at any rate, reading music and understanding theory do not a musical genius make. Remember, the Beatles themselves used to claim that they couldn't/didn't read music, and most of the jazz and rhythm and blues artists they looked up to didn't site read either. Wally Stott claims Scott Walker was quite adept and well-versed in classical music and would suggest composers he had in mind for various sections on his solo material in 30 Century Man, but really who cares?

It's misleading to cite the fanclub numbers, because it seems to imply their fan base was bigger than the Beatles. It just wasn't, in the UK or abroad. Scott Walker's work is not for everybody, whereas the music of the Beatles seems to be as close to that elusive horizon of universality as is possible. It would be nice if discussions and editing could take place with some objectivity by people interested in a subject rather than those devoted to a subject.96.235.34.41 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott Walker's religion
Scott Walker IS!!! Jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.112.116 (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't need a source!
You don't need a source! He just is! It's a known fact, like Bob Dylan is and Leonard Cohen is and Lou Reed and just like the late great WHO drummer Keith Moon! (136.186.254.152 (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC))
 * No. We need a source.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay then!
www.telegraph.co.uk › Culture › Film › Film Reviews‎ Apr 27, 2007 - Instead, there is at times a tacit embrace of Walker as an American who renounced America, the Jewish modernist named Scott Engel who ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.113.202 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Influence on other artists
This section is, with one exception, unsourced. I've tagged it for the moment, but I'm intending to be ruthless and remove it if nobody adds some sources in the next couple of weeks ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of these claims can be sourced via the documentary 30 Century Man (Bowie and Jarvis Cocker, especially, come to mind) - I'll need to do a bit of digging regarding how to cite AV Media and re-watch the movie before making a move, though. That being said, some of the influence claims in this are pretty spurious. Kaini (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're more knowledgeable than I am on the subject: I'll leave it in your hands ;-) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

John Maus
Just casually reading this and have no idea how to use wikipedia but last paragraph of "early history" section doesn't seem to make a lot of sense; don't know how Walker could have met John Maus in 1961 when Maus wasn't born until 1980... also the Surfaris page has no mention of Walker, and why would Walker have a sister with the last name Maus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.83.222 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See John Maus (nothing to do with this article) and John Walker (musician) - whose birth name was John Maus.  Someone added an incorrect and misleading wikilink to the wrong person's page.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

genres
User:Holanthony Seeing as Wikipedia guidelines ask that the infobox be kept general (2-4 genres ideally), we should be aiming for a general overview of Walker's career, not adding in every genre tag that's ever been associated with him in print, let's see what labels seem to be most popular:


 * Pop music
 * avant-garde music
 * art rock
 * experimental music
 * orchestral pop
 * baroque pop
 * blue-eyed soul
 * country rock, country pop, or simply country (note—all the sources seem to treat this as a weird, unrepresentative phase in Walker's career, not a defining style)

To condense all this, I suggest:
 * pop
 * avant-garde

Simple and general, encapsulates everything else on this list without getting bogged down in specifics.

Also, if you're going to add in genres, mind paying any attention to the capitalization and citation formatting so that page doesn't look like trash? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:GentleCollapse16The Wikiguidelines are usually a good yardstick to use, but they are intentionally left open (through the use of the word "ideally") for adding more genres if necessary. In Scott Walker's case, he has had a far more prolific and broad career than most singers of his generation and his style has gone through many different iterations through the years. By that, I don't mean that he just dabbled in one or two songs here and there in the named categories. Rather, he has released actual albums in these categories which as such define him in that given category during that particular period. This is why I feel multiple categories are warranted in his case, as they represent the progression of his career stages. For instance, earlier records (mid-60s) would define Walker as baroque-pop/blue eyed soul whereas the early 70s would see him turn to country, whereas he in the mid-70s would veer off towards pop and in the late 70s/mid80-s would see his transition into art rock, which would then transform fully into experimental music. Calling the Scott Walker of today a "pop singer" I feel would be just as misleading as calling the Scott Walker of the early 70s an "arthouse rock artist". For other performers I can totally see your point, but in this case, the different categories do provide a more accurate representation of who Scott Walker is and the music styles he represents. It makes it more fair to the readers who are not familiar with his musical styles and the metamorphosis he has undergone through the ages.Holanthony (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you really not think that all of Walker's output could be categorized under the incredibly broad labels of "pop music" and "avant-garde music"? Those are purposefully large phrases that don't lump him into any narrow, particular styles while doing justice to his breadth. I mean, the Beatles recorded three or four records of "psychedelic rock" but that's not up on their page, Miles Davis could be lumped in with 20 different styles over his 4 decade career but his page just says jazz—there's no reason to go for stingy specifics and box an artist into all these little made up terms.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are too many categories. Even the lead emphasizes that he's had an "unorthodox path", so it's reasonable to want this to be more specific, but I still think simple is better in this case. As a practical matter, crowded infoboxes don't effectively provide information, they just cause eyes to glaze over. That's especially true for music infoboxes, which tend to become dominated by those who already have strong opinions about what genres belong and which don't. Keeping it simple is a good way to limit this, and all the info can still be presented in the body with appropriate context. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:GentleCollapse16 User:Grayfell Possibly, but the Miles Davies and Beatles comparison is off on several accounts. Primarily because Scott effectively abandoned the Pop scene in the the 1970s and unlike the two aforementioned artists, he metamorphosed exclusively into that particular genre (country, art rock or experimental music, depending on the time period). For instance, Scott's foray into country reflected not only on his solo career, but also on the stuff he did with the Walker Brothers. It was that genre he wanted to be known as during that particular time. He would then leave country for art house and later experimental. During this period, it would be unfair and misleading to pass these ventures of as "pop" simply because it is not representative of Scott's musical ambition during this given time. I agree that we could perhaps pass of the subsets of his 1960s music into the very broad scope of "pop music" (whether it was baroque pop, blue eyed soul, easy listening etc.). but the period that came post-1960s is in my opinion a completely different kettle of fish since he strayed too far from the mainstream scene that would define his previous audience. I would suggest a compromise in which his later career endeavors (which are markedly different) are listed as separate categories. This also makes it clear for the reader what styles he represents. Holanthony (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Scott Walker (singer). 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/20131029205340/http://www.hit-channel.com/interviewsteven-wilson-soloporcupine-tree/46767 to http://www.hit-channel.com/interviewsteven-wilson-soloporcupine-tree/46767

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

American?
I've noticed with many Wikipedia articles that if a musician moves to another country and takes citizenship in that country, this is reflected in the article. (For example, Arnold Schoenberg is described as an "Austrian-American composer.") In this article, Walker is referred to as "American." He's been based in Britain since the 1960s and (as the article states), he took U.K. citizenship in 1970. So shouldn't he be referred to as "Anglo-American" now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.154.209 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair point, and I've edited the lead accordingly - to state that he is American-born, and placed the mention of British nationality in the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't edit-war about it, but I think the best solution is "American-British X" or something like that. "American-born British X" makes it sound like the American part of his nationality is incidental or trivial, and that the fundamental nature of the artist is British. I'd say the first 22 year of a person's life are quite formative - it's not like he way born on a layover. 2606:A000:8183:F400:58:F44D:45E8:309D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "American-born British" is pretty clear.  "American-British" is unclear (especially, I think, to people in the UK who would not use such terminology).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Jewish
Why is there no mention of the fact he is Jewish? (165.120.18.233 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Where are the sources that say that he is?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * His real name was Engel, a Jewish name. (86.180.20.239 (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC))
 * That is not enough. He may well have had Jewish heritage, but to describe him as Jewish requires a reliable source and, preferably, some evidence of self-identification.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Date of death
The breathtakingly incorrect date of death needed changing. Not only does this source quote "Friday" (22nd March), but the respected UK newspaper The Guardian, in its obituary, confirms this date, rather than the 25th (see here for that obit, and scroll to the bottom line). Ref (chew) (do) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)