Talk:The Kinks/Archive 1

Ray Davies also took his toll?
From the disintegration section - "Ray Davies also took his toll and acted as a godfather," - What the hell does this mean? Djbrianuk 13:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My question exactly. We should remove it unless the original author can explain. --Jeff Worthington 16:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Drugs?
It says Ray Davies suffered from drug problems but I thought he never took drugs?

Opinion
An opinion is that The Kinks achieved a meeting of style and content above and beyond that of any Brit band.

A very English group
Given the Kinks Englishness (or at least London Welshness) wouldn't it be awfully appropriate to translate this article into (UK) English, sorting out the odd Americanisms that have crept in? I do appreciate that you chaps on the other side of the pond are rather fond of ye olde Kinks, but they did start here after all. Another point is this Rock 'n Roll thingy: No-one was using that term for current pop in '64, they were all called Rock Groups at that time, and stayed so until the Band were at the forefront of Bands coming into vogue. I await any response with interest, yours faithfully, ..dave souza 00:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

shaww thing, fella. Go ahead.


 * That makes sense, especially dates in European style (I believe British differ from Americans as well?). I wouldn't remove rock references, just put them in their time.  They are considered rock, but at the time pop, so make note of that, I wouldn't remove them from what they are considered today.  Also, late Kinks, definitely in the US would be considered rock. Fgren グレン 12:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The name
Where does the name come from? Has it got anything to do with kinky, or is that merely a coincidence?

Yes, according to Uncut magazine (I don't recall the edition - it had the Kinks on the cover though!), the name came from the "Kinky" leather accessories they had taken to wearing.


 * They got the name about the time that The Avengers on TV had made thigh length Kinky Boots very fashionable: and had produced a dodgy single. The Avengers Forever cites Ray Davies in a 1995 interview saying that Dave and Pete wore capes and boots. and a drunk guy at the bar suggested the name: check the link for the story....dave souza 23:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Project: Decopyvio
Please help us out in de-copyvioing the article. Many sections were cut-and-pasted straight from The All Music Guide; just take a gander at their bio there and compare it to this article. Where word-for-word (or almost word-for-word) duplication occurs, please amend the article as you see fit (deletion, modification, etc). I've done my part; I think I've gotten all vestiges of copyvio out of the intro and "Early Years" section. (Hopefully someone will double check this for me, though.) Let's join together on this. Starry Eyes 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried to remove the remaining stolen text in my recent revision. I probably missed some things, so everyone keep an eye out! CKarnstein 06:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

sentence meaning?
I don't know what this sentence is trying to say (it's towards the bottom third of the article). If someone is familiar with the material, please fix it. Thanks. Also fuel to the fire added the stormy relationship end between Davies and Chrissie Hynde. Whatthree16 07:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to 'John Dalton' the scientist
In the section 'line-ups' the bass-player John Dalton is incorrectly linked to the Scientist John Dalton. The correct link should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalton_%28musician%29 as used in the section External links, past members. Would somebody who knows how to do this, be so kind as to introduce this change?
 * Someone appears to have fixed it. Rodparkes 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Funny Guy
A very funny person, or a person who thinks he is very funny sabbotaged this page. "You Really Got My Mother" and the names of the artists of the British Invasion or just two of his jokes. I don't have time to edit it now (school...).

I was just thinking that you should make a page just for Lola and what happened with that song in the US! That song roxs

Box at Bottom of Page
Could somebody update the box at the bottom of the page (between external links and categories)? I'm not sure how to do it and I think we have all the albums that there aren't currently links to within it. Tangerine 03 13:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vague mention of "Davies"
Often the article mentions "Davies" without a specification of which of the Davies brothers it is referring to. A brief look at context can sometimes allow the reader to figure it out, but I think it would really help to clarify this and say either "Ray Davies" or "Dave Davies" in these instances. 65.195.133.120 13:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article as been very, very non-NPOV. I've tried to clean this up with my recent revision, but let's all try to be careful about this. It is not NPOV to gush over the band, their songs, or albums, no matter how great they were. CKarnstein 06:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New
From the most recent section: "Amazingly, 'Other People's Lives' gave Ray Davies his first top 40 album chart success in the UK for almost 40 years, The Kinks last album of 'new' material was 'Something Else by The Kinks' in 1967." WHAT?!? Someone please explain to me how the last album of new material was Something Else?

Hungerford bridge??
I always thought Waterloo Sunset was talking about Waterloo Bridge, not Hungerford. Is there any reason to identify it as Hungerford Bridge? Bluewave 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and a surf of the internet seems to support this here and on the Waterloo Bridge and Waterloo Sunset pages. In any case, I think the sunset from Hungerford Bridge would be a bit rubbish because of the adjacent railway line, and the song should have been called Charing Cross Sunset. I'll change it, although in the absense of conclusive proof either way, it might be safer not to specify which bridge at all. Dw290 14:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
I've had a go at restructuring the first paragraph. The old version more or less defined the Kinks in terms of the "British Invasion" - a term that is totally meaningless outside the US. So have moved reference to the Davies brothers earlier and de-emphasised the british invasion. Bluewave 10:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've given this a going over, primarily to remove POV and add refs. I'm going to give the rest of the article the same treatment, once I dig out my Mojos and Record Collectors. All this needs is a good tidyup and it could be FA quality in no time--KaptKos 14:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kinks personnel
I have removed the lengthy "The Kinks personnel" section. This did not display properly (it was partially covered by the album covers), took up a lot of space, and was redundant and excessively detailed for an encyclopedia article. CKarnstein 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah. And I'm here to ask for a personnel section, which imho all articles on long running bands with many lineups changes should have. I'll have to dig into the history to see what was zapped... --kingboyk 23:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and Facts
I added the section "Trivia and Facts" to the bottom of the page. I hope more people add any interesting facts about the Kinks (or bandmembers) to it in the near future.--Bappzannigan 22:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject
Shouldn't the Kinks be part of the Rock music WikiProject? The Who are, why aren't the Kinks? Is it that they just haven't gotten around to adding them? Can anybody arrange for the Kinks to be part of that? Thanks--Bappzannigan 14:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Edits All Over the Place
I've done a lot of work on this article through the years but it only takes one bad apple -- someone has come in while I was away this summer and hacked this thing to pieces. There are so many leftover words from phrases that have been (often needlessly) removed that the prose is all but unreadable in spots -- just typo after typo after typo. I hope someone else will have the diligence to police this page, the band it chronicles deserves it. But enough is enough -- life is too short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Kinks Releases That Should Be Added
There are a few glaring omissions from the Kinks' discography. The 2001 release, BBC Sessions: 1964-1977 should be added, being that every other similar release has its own page. To The Bone a live-in-the-studio CD that the band recorded between 1994 and 1996 should also be added, it featured two new songs as well. I'd do this, but I don't know how. Also, shouldn't each of the bands' singles or notable songs have their own pages? About 50 songs by the Who have their own page, The Kinks only have 5 or so. --Bappzannigan 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added Percy. How did this not make the discography? And I agree; To The Bone is important, and the To The Bone version of I'm Not Like Everybody Else was used in the final episode of one of the Sopranos seasons. Dirtypants 11:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Who joined first?
This article says that Ray and Dave started the band together and invited Pete Quaife to join them. However, the individual article on Pete Quaife says he and Ray Davies formed the band then Dave Davies joined later. In yet another version, the article on Dave Davies says that Dave and Pete formed the band and were later joined by Ray. Which is correct? Rodparkes 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rehearsals for tour?
I heard a rumor from an insider that there have been some rehearsals going on with Ray and Dave Davies and talk of a tour. I believe Rodford is involved as well. Any other info? googuse 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lola
Should Lola Vs. Powerman be included in the list of highly regarded albums at the start of the article? Various reviews and websites such as All Music rate it very highly and it is on Amazon's list of essential recordings. I didn't want to add it with out asking, if we think it should I can link the Amazon and All Music sites.204.73.103.253 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Definitely second that motionJatrius (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also - there doesn't seem to be any info on the live version of "Lola". Wasn't that a later release? Did it chart? I think it is worth a mention, but I don't know where to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.11.248 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SNL appearances
''The Kinks performed Saturday Night Live three times during this period, further adding to their resurgent popularity. They first performed for SNL in 1977 during the famous "Mardi Gras" episode, then again in 1981, and one final time in 1984.''

The Kinks 1977 appearance on SNL singing Lola was taped in New York with Steve Martin hosting. Where this idea of them being on the Mardi Gras show comes from is beyond me but it's erroneous in any case and should be removed.VanIsleDD 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely that should read ON Saturday Night Live. I don't know a song of that name.Jatrius (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox edit war
Hey, before this turns into a revert war, it seems like the standard for a band that fits into different genres is to have a list, not a slash. Gimme danger 07:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Solo work
Since this page is getting rather long, I think the section on solo work should be moved to individual member pages, with appropriate notes on solo work in the history section. Any thoughts? Gimme danger 14:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Other contributors are still adding to this section.  It should be covered in depth under the individual members' entries with appropriate "see also" links here.  I'd do it myself, but I don't have time right now.  Rodparkes 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations & References
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"English" or "British" band?
The question has arisen over on the page for The Beatles as to whether the band should be described in the lead as "English" or "British". Since the discussion there has implications for this article as well, contributors to the Kinks article are invited to provide their input and vote in the poll found here. Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Touring
I do not read anything about their touring in various European countries here

U.S. Ban
There are a couple mentions of the ban in the U.S. but I do not see any explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.91.177 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It says this, which seems sufficient (there is no definitive reason for the ban):
 * "Following the summer 1965 American tour, the American Federation of Musicians refused permits for the group to appear in concerts in America for the next four years, cutting the Kinks off from the main market for rock music at the height of the British Invasion. [7] Although neither the Kinks nor the Union gave a specific reason for the ban, at the time it was widely attributed to their rowdy on-stage behaviour. [8]" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Influence
Hey I'm not knowledgeable on them at all but created an influence section might be a good idea. 168.122.209.176 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "History" section has a section on influence. It could of course be expanded.(olive (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Grammar
A band is one thing, one entity so correct grammar is to use the singular form of the verb.... and I was trained in British English not American. If you want to use the plural you can use "band members"... I'll let you make the change.(olive (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC))


 * That isn't a hard-and-fast rule when applied to proper names - the whole concept of collective nouns in flexible in English (American, anyway). Because it sounds "funny" to have a single verb after a pluralized collective noun (like "Kinks") plural verbs are often used - most notably in sports writing, because most sports teams have names that end in -S. You'll virtually never read "The Knicks is the best team in basketball" for example. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, the perfect example is that the name of the album is not The Kinks is the Village Green Preservation Society - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Album Covers and the language there is created for advertising, as sound bites to draw in customers, whereas Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia that uses correct grammar... but hey its not a big deal and thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Agreed, we should use correct grammar - but correct grammar doesn't require a singular verb after a collective proper noun. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I suspect the problem is in the syntax. How about this change in the article. I'll nip right over there and change it give me a sec.(olive (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Good idea. Often such stumbling blocks are a sign of poor wording. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both usages are definitely "correct" in British English, depending on the context. Fowler's Modern English Usage famously uses the examples of "Parliament is divided" and "Parliament are united". With teams and bands, the general usage is plural. This is not bad grammar, it is usage that is just as correct as any other. Bluewave (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited genres
I edited the genres and added punk rock, The Kinks are very much considered first wave punk rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.50.245 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit might be good intentioned and this may be your personal opinion but unfortunately it is 100% incorrect and has been reverted for that reason. Wether B (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes in title of Lola vs. Powerman
Hello everyone - I'd just like to bring attention to the recent changing in title on the page for Lola vs. Powerman. It was "Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One", the correct title, before it was changed a few days back to "Kinks part 1: Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround", a misunderstanding of the placement of words on the LP cover. I fear that this will cause confusion, and it should be changed. Is the original title not the correct one? Here is my original post on the discussion page:

I see it fit to reverse the recent change in title of this album. Recently, it was moved to "Kinks part 1: Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround". The name is incorrect, and is a misunderstanding of the placement of words on the LP cover. I am looking at my LP right now, and the spine clearly states: "Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One". I am aware that there is not, nor was there ever intended insofar as I know, a "Part Two", but no matter how strange and nonsensical the title, this is the title. I do not want to go ahead with these edits without other opinions first. Please, speak up, what do you think?

Here are some links with the title:

Google Music: http://www.google.com/musicl?lid=WRwW3vuSPwE&aid=kNTmEGR6E-H

Rolling Stone Magazine: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thekinks/albums/album/217594/lola_versus_powerman__the_moneygoround

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Lola-versus-Powerman-Money-Go-Round-Part/dp/B000002KOW/ref=cm_lmf_tit_8

KindaKinks.net Website Discography: http://www.kindakinks.net/discography/showrelease.php?release=168

I.M.S. (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the talk page of the album - can we keep the discussion in one place? Retro junkie (talk)

Resurrecting The WikiProject Idea
Does anyone think the The Kinks deserve a WP? Are they significant enough? I see quite a few groups already have their own projects, even ones of lower importance, notability, significance, etc, than The Kinks. Obviously, major groups like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones have them, but so do groups like The Who and Van Halen. This subject was brought up a year or two ago on this talk page, but it seemed to go unnoticed. Does anyone else think that this group needs a project? Do you have to get permission first? I'll go ahead and set it up (I won't launch it), if a few other editors will join me. Anyone? I.M.S. (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now proposed it to the WikiProject Council, it just needs 10 votes to pass. If you'd like to help, please go to the proposal here, or here (internal link) WikiProject Council/Proposals/The Kinks. Thanks! - I.M.S. (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The New WikiProject
As you can see from the top of the page, the new WikiProject that I proposed a while back has finally been realized - it can be found at WikiProject The Kinks. Please, feel free to join in (we need everyone we can get) and help clean up, improve, and tag all the articles that fit within the scope of the project. Let's hope it grows and prospers! - I.M.S. (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of Article
Just a note to say that over the next month I will be working on this article, which I will attempt to raise to at least GA-class. I'll slowly work my way through the article and rewrite, add references, and "work out the kinks" of it. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I've expanded this article x2 by now, I believe. I hope that I have improved the quality of it as a whole. I'm still working on it - I think everything up to the "Return to Commercial Success (1977 – 1984)" is very strong. Past there, the article gets a little shaky. I'm rather busy right now, so I won't be able to improve it for another day or so. If anyone would like to help contribute, or has any feedback, please, post here - I need all the help I can get. I'd like to eventually get this article to FA. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now completed it to the best of my ability. Over all, I'm very pleased with how it came out. It is currently being reviewed for FA. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy Editor Concerns
I'm currently performing a major copy edit on the article. I am confused by a statement in the opening paragraph: "When Quaife left the group permanently in 1969, Dalton replaced him and played with the group until 1976; after Dalton briefly returned two years later, Jim Rodford took over on bass. They were accompanied by a frequently changing roster of keyboardists."

This comment seems to indicate that Dalton left briefly in 1976, returned in 1978, and then Jim Rodford took over on Bass. If that's the case, where did Dalton go? I thought he was a bass player? Please keep in mind I know nothing of this subject. Any insight into the intended meaning of these two sentences would be appreciated. I'm not asking you to rewrite them, just explain them so that I can make an appropriate modification. Thanks. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This little bit was put in by someone else - it is slightly confusing. Dalton actually left the band in 1977 - he was then replaced by Andy Pyle for an extremely short period of time, then came back for another short period, and then was permanently replaced by Rodford. This is all too confusing for the lead - how about just making it clear that "Dalton left in 1977, and was replaced for a short period by Andy Pyle. Pyle left the same year and was once again replaced by Dalton for another short run with the group. Dalton was finally replaced permanently by Jim Rodford." Or how about making it so that "Dalton left the group temporarily in 1977, and was replaced by Andy Pyle. Dalton returned momentarily in 1978, but was eventually replaced permanently by Jim Rodford." I like the last one the best. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the last one as well. Any details it leaves out are better suited for the later sections and are inappropriate for the initial paragraph. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I merged it into the article as follows:
 * "When Quaife left the group permanently in 1969, Dalton replaced him and played with the group until 1977, when he left the group temporarily and was replaced by Andy Pyle. Dalton returned momentarily in 1978, but was eventually replaced permanently by Jim Rodford."


 * Please let me know what you think --Mpdelbuono (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I have one problem elsewhere to point out -


 * Through the early 1970s, the group released a string of commercially and critically successful singles and LPs.


 * If you can change that to "1960s", as the group found most of there success in that period. Also, If you aren't that familiar with the Kinks, it might benefit you to read the short Allmsuic bio of the group. On another note, I really appreciate your taking the time to copyedit the article - It's looking better already. Many thanks - I.M.S. (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you made that change on your own. It looks fine. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Back in Studio
I read a AP story on wcbsfm.com that the Kinks are back in the studio with what is bassicly the eary 80's lineup of Ray Davies,Avoy,Rodford and Gibbons minus Dave Davies who might also contribute depending on his health. DLA75 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos from 1970
Having looked into this some more, I'm afraid the Creative Commons releases for these two photos are simply implausible. If Picasa Web member Geoff really did take the photo for which credit is claimed for him, then he must have taken the infobox photo, and this album cover photo, and this album cover photo. If he really took all of these, wouldn't he have them posted? He doesn't, but what he does have, amid a ton of amateur-quality concert shots of the Kast Off Kinks from the last 12 years are this and this, and I think it's abundantly clear he didn't take either of those. Anyway, here's his little autobiography, which I think makes it quite clear he wasn't doing photography sessions with the Kinks in 1970 or anytime.

That said, it certainly would be appropriate to use a fair use photo to show the band in its longest-running (1970-76/78) incarnation. From the looks of it, there are many high-quality (and better-sourced) ones out there. DocKino (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you think we should go about it, then? I believe the infobox photo is legitimate. I'll go ahead and remove the others from the article, and, if you see it fit, we can choose a suitable image to upload under fair use. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. - thank you for your work and backing me up at the Kinks' FAC - I appreciate it. Also, do you think I should go ahead and nominate the article for GAC? - I.M.S. (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) You're very welcome.
 * (2) No, I'm afraid the infobox photo is not legitimate. The uploader admitted found it on a personal website operated by a German painter who's a big Kinks fan, but clearly not a Kinks photographer. Both the infobox and the other 1970 photos obviously come from a professional session that has never legitimately been released into the public domain. I'd like it if it were otherwise, but the evidence is clear.
 * (3) Yes, I believe the article is ready for and would benefit from a GA nomination. DocKino (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Darn - I'll have to remove all of them. Thanks for doing the digging to find their proper sources - I, too, wish that they were legitimate, but, as they're clearly not, they aren't acceptable. I'll also go ahead and nominate it for GA. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One possibly fruitful source for free imagery: Publicity photos of the band (a) published in the United States, (b) without copyright notice, (c) before 1978. That's how I was able to illustrate the Sex Pistols article (though there, the band's official website is a terrific image resource that makes very clear what's under copyright and what isn't). I'm happy to do some digging when I've got time. DocKino (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DocKino - those are some great photos you've added to the page! I actually uploaded the one in the infobox a few months ago under a fairly strong rationale of fair use - but it was deleted. I'd never have thought of checking under Swedish images before 1969 - very smart idea! (I've waited to post this to avoid an edit conflict, in case you were notifying me here about the images - but I can't wait any longer. Good job!) - I.M.S. (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Good luck with the good article nom. DocKino (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I imagine it won't be too long a wait - (in the music section) I see articles on musical artists usually pass through GAN very quickly, as there are many reviewers who are interested in the subjects (as opposed to articles for albums, songs, and instruments that can take a full month or two). Hopefully it will pass quickly, and I can work on it some more, eventually bringing it back to FAC. I hope to obtain some more books on The Kinks soon, hopefully some with full chart positions. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DocKino, I uploaded a new version of the lead photograph, which I touched up slightly, removing some dust and specks. It can be found. Could you compare it to the original, and tell me if you think it worthy of the infobox? - I.M.S. (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'll go ahead and use it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done. Yes, that mote on Ray's chin had troubled me. Looks great now. DocKino (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * DocKino, I have a question. I was recently reading a book on The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society, and I noticed an interesting passage regarding the photos:


 * "For the cover of the new album, a photo session was organised on Hampstead Heath ... with two photographers, Pye's in-house snapper and Melody Makers Barrie Wentzell ... One of Wentzell's photographs was used on the rear of the album, although he did not receive a credit (or payment)'."


 * Is this possible No Copyright Notice/PD material? I can create a nice scan of the image and upload it, if it fits under this category. Does "no copyright notice" affect rear album art? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is this is not PD material. As I understand UK copyright law, as Wentzell took the photo and was not compensated with "money or money’s worth that is equivalent goods or services", he or his estate is the legal owner of copyright on the image until 70 years after his death. If he otherwise agreed in writing, then Pye's corporate heirs would hold copyright. Either way, not PD. DocKino (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that. I'm always on the lookout now for PD images - it's a shame how few good quality ones from the 60s have been released into the PD or under under a free license. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to come running back to ask another question, but I believe I've found a real one now. See here. It's a photo of Ray in character as "Flash", from the Preservation series. This promo would have been published in 1974, and I believe it qualifies for PD/no copyright notice, similar to your Sex Pistols shots. What do you think? I'll go ahead and upload it if you think it's alright. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done! Yes, I think you can run with this on exactly the same sort of PD/no copyright notice basis that the Sex Pistols images fall under. RCA, like most American record companies, didn't bother to distribute their publicity materials with copyright notice as was required for copyright protection before 1978--as this image makes evident: big logo, proud claim of exclusivity, no notice. Some people are surprised by this, but it makes perfect sense. RCA wasn't making money off its promotional material, it was making money off of records, and the only thing it wanted from publicity images such as this was that they be distributed and published as widely as possible--if anything, copyright concerns would only have gotten in the way.
 * Now. One important caveat. While the basis is similar to that of the Pistols' pictures, you'll need to do some extra work in the image description. Your image source does not indicate the year when this no-copyright-notice image was distributed, so you're going to have to establish very firmly, with cited sources, that this image could only have been from 1974 (or 1974–75, or whatever, so long as it's definitely pre-1978). So, a little more elbow grease there, but great find and great image, which will really aid our understanding of The Kinks' theatrical phase. DocKino (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help - I've uploaded the image, and I'll add it to the article in a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you also might like to know that I recently acquired a copy of the Hudson/Martin book you suggested to me. It looks interesting, and it might help me beef up some weak spots in the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)