Talk:The Kinks/Archive 3

are/were
It is usual in wikipedia, although not universal (is anything universal in wikipedia?), to treat bands as a compound noun, if that's the right term, and give them plural verbs - i.e., "The Kinks were" not "The Kinks was". This is true even when the name of the band is singular - e.g. The Jam. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is one of the differences between British and American English. As this is a British topic, the plural form is used, but for an American topic - say Aerosmith or The Velvet Underground - the singular form is used.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: "Golden age" section should read 1966-1972--discussion of 1966 should be placed under "Golden age" section--"Breakthrough and touring ban" section should read "1964-1965"
The "Golden age" section of this article should read 1966-1972, not 1967-1972. It was in 1966 with the release of songs such as "I'm Not Like Everybody Else," "Dead End Street," and "Sunny Afternoon," on singles, as well as the release of their first LP masterpiece, "Face to Face"--Face to Face (The Kinks album) (UK rel. Oct. 28, 1966, Pye Records), that The Kinks entered what is now regarded as their "golden age." This is the common understanding of all followeres and observers of The Kinks. See Jason Gross' website devoted to this topic, The Golden Age of the Kinks (www.furious.com/perfect/kinks.html). According to Don Igancio, regarding thier 1966 album, Face to Face: "This album not only marks the Kinks at the beginning of their peak years (from 1966-1972)..." . See also article by Stanley Urbane "Face to Face-Heralding the "Golden Age" of The Kinks," where he says "In 1966...with 4th album, Face To Face, The Kinks took a marked change of direction, and for many, this was the beginning of the "Golden Age" of The Kinks." The Face to Face album is inseperable from the preceding singles (mentioned above) that had been realeased throughout 1966--they are closely tied. They share the same thematic and stylistic preoccupations with the album. In fact, "Sunny Afternoon" was included on the original Face to Face LP, and the other singles' songs are usually included as bonus tracks on CD versions of the album.

Understandably, making this change would necessitate other changes:
 * The text discussing The Kinks in 1966 should be taken out of "Breakthrough and and touring ban" section and placed under "Golden age" section.
 * The "Breakthrough and touring ban section" should cover the years 1964-1965 (not 1964-1966--as I said, 1966 should be transferred to next section). The US touring ban actually was in effect for a few more years (up through 1968 or 1969), but it was in 1965 that the ban was put into place. So, 1965 would make a better year to end the breakthrough/touring ban section, because after that (1966) the Kinks enter a new phase (a phase that the article mentions was already beginning in late 1965).

And or course 1964-1965 were great years also--the kind that any other band would regard as a golden period. Long live the Kinks!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I made the necessary changes. Now the article is more precise and factual. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nicky Hopkins was session man, not full-fledged member of the band
The graphs and lists that show the various lineups/band members convey the false impression that Nicky Hopkins was a full-fledged member of the band (1965-1968), when he was not. He certainly did play an important role as a session player (piano, keyboards, harpsichord) on the four albums they did during these years--and he is, no doubt, regarded as perhaps the most famous session player in British rock. But, he was not a full band member and did not tour or play live gigs with them. Nor was he ever pictured in any group photos. He did only studio session work for them, just as he did for other bands at this time such, as The Rolling Stones and The Who. Supposedly, he was even the inspiration for Ray Davies' song "Session Man." Don't get me wrong, he should definitely be mentioned in the article. But, he should not be on any of the band lists or graphs, designated as an actual band member, because he wasn't. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I made a change: I kept Hopkins' name mentioned in the band "past members" list and in the graph down at the bottom, but I put in parenthesis "(session)" after his name to make his role more clear. That will have to do for now.  But, I still feel that his name should be removed from these lists/graphs, for the best sake of accuracy. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Is "Percy" a studio album?
Several editors keep adding and removing "Percy" from the list of studio albums. How about if you discuss it here and try and reach consensus? (I have no opinion, myself.)

To start the discussion, it is currently listed under "Live and other albums" on The Kinks discography, distinct from "Studio albums" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with listing Percy as a studio album. I believe that it may have been intended as a soundtrack for a movie that never got made. But, if you think it would go better under the "Live and other albums" section, that is also fine--just as long as it is mentioned somewhere in the discography. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Heading and Legacy sections should say: "...of the rock era" or "...in rock history"--Kinks influence transcends time
To merely say: "The Kinks are recognized as one of the most important and influential rock acts of the 1960s and early 1980s" or ..."of the era..." (i.e. just the 60s) falls short of the band's true proportions as almost universally regarded in rock history. There is an near unanimous consensus amongst rock writers, critics, and music lovers that the Kinks are one of the most important and influential acts of the whole rock era, not just of the 60s and/or early 80s. Those were certainly their two most successful periods (artistically: 1964-1972, and 1977-1983; commercially: 1964-1966 and 1977-1983) and no doubt they had fallow periods in other years, but other important acts who have stayed in music for a long time, such as the Rolling Stones or Dylan, have also had dry spells. And like those artists, the Kinks' importance transcends the vicissitudes of time.

They exerted a heavy influence on nearly every one of the hundreds of thousands of garage bands that sprang up across America in the 60s, so much so that their influence rivaled that of the Beatles and Rolling Stones. With their early use of power chords, they have influenced every subsequent form hard rock, be it the Who, punk, heavy metal, grunge, you name it. Ray Davies' class conscious lyrics were a huge influence on 70s British punk acts, such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash and the Jam. No band, not even the Beatles, was as influential on the Britpop scene of the 90s as the Kinks. Bands such as Blur and Oasis revered the Kinks, perhaps, above all others.

Pete Townshend called Ray Davies "the poet laureate" of England. In his song lyrics, Ray Davies has captured 20th century and modern England in a definitive kind of way that is almost comparable to what Dickens was able to do with the 19th century Victorian era--and the same cannot likely be said for any other figure, literary or otherwise, in recent history. That is no mean achievement, and he will be remembered for it. In the world of rock lyricists he is usually treated in the same league with luminaries such as Lennon and McCartney and Dylan. The Kinks are the only band that I know of (not even the Beatles) that has ever been crowned the ultimate accolade of having had a golden age (as a band unto themselves, not merely as part of a larger golden era). So the statements in the heading and Legacy sections should be changed to read: "...are recognized as one of the most important and influential acts of the rock era" or "...one of the most influential acts in rock history." That would be the most accurate characterization of their reputation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discography
While we generally split live albums from studio releases, there is no rule governing this, and articles generally go by what is appropriate, such as The_Allman_Brothers_Band, James_Brown, Grateful_Dead, Cream_(band), Jimi_Hendrix. By allowing such flexibility and responsiveness to individual situations we can create discographies that are more helpful to general readers, and prevent instruction creep that will sniffle further article development. The standard discographies of the Kinks list live albums along with the studio albums: AllMusic, Rolling Stone, KindaKinks, Discogs. The Kinks live performances are an important element in their story - they were banned from performing live in America during their peak creative period in the late Sixties. Everybody's in Show-Biz is a live and studio album. To the Bone is also a studio and live album''. As such separating out the official releases into live and studio is not helpful in this case, and is non-standard for this band. I suggest all official release albums are listed as shown in discography sources, in chronological order regardless of if the music was recorded in the studio or in concert hall.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there are objections I will set the discography section to include all regular album releases in chronological order as reflected in significant sources.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we only put studio albums there usually because they are what are considered "major releases". Few exceptions have been made, for say Drake who had a mixtape disputed as an album. I'd say only studio unless there is a dispute on what it is, if it's both a live and studio album, like comedians do, for example Bo Burnham, or if it is considered a major release. Like something that had great success and is what they could be known for. Cause I do not see live albums in Drake Bell's or Taylor Swift's discography sections. But it may be notable here. I'll wait for other opinions. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying about major releases, and agree. In this case we have the major releases (which include both studio and live albums) but they are separated into two columns: studio and live, breaking the chronological order of the major releases. My point is that all the significant reliable sources put the major releases together in chronological order (see the links above, and please do your own research, either online or in the library), but here on Wikipedia we have made a decision to separate the live albums which makes them appear to the general reader as perhaps less important than the studio albums. This may actually be more of a discussion to be held on the music and album projects rather than just here, as there are other oddities, such as Deep_Purple which leaves out Concerto for Group and Orchestra presumably because it's a live album, and disregarding that it consists of original compositions, and that the album is very well known (some would say "notorious"). However, it's worth discussing this here to see what people feel, though I may start a new discussion on the wikiproject talkpages.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also an issue with Percy, in The Kinks article it is listed under Studio albums, but in the Percy article, it is not given studio album number, i.e. Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One is the eighth studio album, and Muswell Hillbillies is the ninth studio album, so where does Percy sit. Also the Word of Mouth article states that it is the twentieth studio album, but the next album, Think Visual article states that it is the twenty-second studio album. I suspect that there isn't a missing twenty-first studio album, but that someone has counted, e.g. Percy into the sequence. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We are agreed that the list should be major releases rather than bootlegs or compilations. We have an uncertainty about albums like Percy and Everybody's in Showbiz because they are not conventional studio albums, but they should be included. Are we agreed that it is OK to list Percy and Everybody's in Showbiz, and live albums like Kelvin Hall chronologically, as other Kinks discographies do?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As there has been no objection to putting the major releases in chronological order I will do so again. If anyone does object, please bring objections to this discussion rather than reverting.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the place to discuss changes to the discography. Please do not engage in an edit war. We make more progress by discussion.

Here are standard discographies of the Kinks:, , ,. Albums are listed in order of release, not separated into an arbitrary listing of "live" and "studio". This separation is non standard, and in some cases - such as here where the Kinks have an album that is both live and studio - not helpful.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Studio and live albums are almost always separated in this section, unless the live albums have as much importance as the studio ones, for instance if they consist mostly of previously unreleased or drastically rearranged material (e.g. Allman Brothers). However it is absolutely not the case here. The Kinks' live albums feature renditions of their studio tracks and do not matter as much as the studio albums, so they should be listed apart. The only point of controversy is the 'Show-Biz' album, which is indeed both studio & live, and should maybe listed twice. 'To The Bone', however, should be listed only among the live albums, as the studio part was in fact recorded live in the studio in front of a small audience.JPGR69 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "unless the live albums have as much importance as the studio ones". I agree. Which is why the live albums are listed alongside the studio albums. That's what the main sources do. If we separate out certain Kinks albums here on Wikipedia because we feel they "do not matter as much as the studio albums" we will be doing so on a personal judgement, rather than reflecting what reliable sources are saying. The albums as listed in the article now, are the major releases as accepted by the standard sources on the Kinks, and the standard discographies, which I have linked above. For example, see the AllMusic discography of the Kinks, and see the discography at the back of You Really Got Me: The Story of The Kinks By Nick Hasted. Look at the discography sources used in the articles, such as KindaKinks.net. It's not me deciding that the live albums are considered to be an integral part of the story, it is the very sources that we've used in building the article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  01:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources you are citing do not 'decide that Kinks live albums are an integral part of the story', they just choose to list studio & live albums together. But allmusic and discogs do that for all bands/artists. So according to your point view, wiki pages of all artists should be modified to merge studio and live albums, on which I disagree. I insist that separating studio & live albums is not a matter of personal judgement. It is following an objective criteria: it's not me or you who decides that an album is a studio or a live album. Hence, there's no reason that the Kinks page should not follow the general wiki consensus that studio and live albums are listed separately.JPGR69 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, because we do generally separate studio from live, though not always. Some articles don't differentiate between the two if the editors working on those articles feel such a separation is inappropriate. I am working on this article, and I am one of the main contributors -, and I feel that based on reliable sources, that separating the live from the studio for the Kinks is non standard and not helpful. Our guidelines accept that this is the case. If the editors working on an article feel that listing all the albums is the appropriate thing to do, that is what we do - see WP:DISCOGSTYLE, in particular WikiProject_Discographies/style. In this article, originally the albums were all listed , and the article's discography has gone through various stylings, sometimes with just a link to the stand alone discography, and for a period had the albums listed with their covers. So there have been variations along the way. I'm reading the discographies of the Kinks as I'm working on this article, and I find that we do it differently from the way the sources do, so I am putting the discography back to how it was originally, and how the standard works on the Kinks set it out. That way the discography matches that in sources, and the albums are kept in chronological order for those wishing to understanding the band's development. The format of the albums (live or studio or both) is noted in the list, and there is a sourced introduction (again, not something generally found in Wikipedia article discographies, but helpful here because of the nature of the band's recording output). Each band is different. For this band, the current set up, to which I have given thought and time, and for which I have done sourced research, appears most appropriate, and meets our policies and guidelines.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect your huge contribution to this page, and I agree that studio and live albums may be separated if the editors feel it appropriate. In the case of the Allman Brothers or Grateful Dead for instance, it is clearly appropriate. In the case of the Kinks, I do not think so. Why should the inclusion of 'Live At The Kelvin Hall' in this list be more appropriate than the inclusion of, say, 'Live At Leeds' on the Who page? Why are Kinks live albums particularly helpful to understand the band's development and not Rolling Stones or Who live albums? The bare fact that Allmusic or Discogs merge studio and live albums does not convince me at all. And anyway, I never said we should remove the names of the live albums from this page, I just think we should list them separately, which in my opinion would make the discography much more understandable.JPGR69 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Live At Leeds is a significant album - it should be part of the listing of main albums. If I was working seriously on the Who article (I've made a few edits over the years, but I'm not actively working on it) I would look into including it. It is probably an oversight based on the album being dropped from the list some time around 2007, or it may be because there is this feeling that is how discographies should be done, though it appears to be only on Wikipedia (and mirrors) that Live At Leeds is dropped from the band's list of main albums. Other sources include it.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Leeds is not dropped from the list of 'main albums', but from the 'studio albums'. Again, let us stick to objective criteria. There are 'studio' albums and 'live' albums, which is easier to differentiate than 'main' and 'minor' albums. If you include 'Leeds' in the list, what criterion will you choose to include or not include the other live albums by the Who? This will be subject to endless discussions. The studio/live distinction, usually applied on Wikipedia, is much clearer, much more objective and should be applied to the Kinks as well.JPGR69 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The criteria is reliable sources; that is what we use for all important facts on Wikipedia. Reliable sources which include album lists or discographies, such as books on the artists, official websites of the artists or their record companies, sites such as AllMusic which create discographies, etc. If we use reliable sources, then we can't go far wrong. I have indicated several reliable sources which do not separate the Kinks' albums into lists of live and studio. Your counter augment (which I understand) is that this is the way it is done on other articles; but we have the essay Other stuff exists which indicates that such an argument by itself is not enough. I fully understand that because this is the way it has been done since around 2007, and has become established, that there is an unease when the format is different, but I feel it would be academically dishonest and misleading for our readers if I ignored what other reliable sources are doing in order to make this article confirm to what in this case (and likely others, such as the Who) is an inappropriate set up. If the reliable sources don't separate the "live" and "studio" albums, why should we - especially as our own discography guidelines indicate that we don't have to? As regards "Live at Leeds" - while it is mentioned significantly in the article, it is missing from the article's discography, and has been since around 2007 (actually it was included in 2009). I'm not after changing the way we do things - I don't have the time or energy to set up a RfC on the issue - but I do feel very uncomfortable doing something on an article I'm editing which runs counter to what the sources do, and for no satisfactory reason other than that's the way it's been generally done on other articles since around 2007 or 2009. We should be summarising what reliable sources say, not rearranging facts to suit some arbitrary decision that appears to have been made somewhere around 2007 - 2009.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with reliability. I'm not saying the sources you mention are unreliable. They just choose a different way of listing the albums. Allmusic and Discogs follow the "no separation" policy for all bands/artists, but with a bit of research, it is possible to find other reliable sources listing studio albums separately, for example : . I insist that there is no reason not to make the distinction here.JPGR69 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is no more objection, I will reinstate the studio/live albums separation.JPGR69 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Father Christmas misplaced?
I'm puzzled why the author/editor of this sentence placed it in the "Theatrical Incarnation" section. It was not composed or recorded during this period (in fact was created 2 years after the era, on the Arista label rather than RCA, which otherwise was the label for all the "Theatrical" releases.) More troubling is it's placement reads as if it were part of "Schoolboys in Disgrace." I looked for a more appropriate place to move the sentence, but it seemed like an odd duck wherever I put it without re-writing it, which I am hesitant to do. Does someone else want to take a stab at it? ShelbyMarion (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

2018
I'm as excited as any Kinks fan about the news that Ray, Dave and Mick Avory are recording, but it's foolish to rush in and change this article as if the band has reformed, equating what may or may not be a successful bit of playing with their past accomplishments. Lots of aging rockers get together in the studio and nothing comes of it - it's way too easy to say The Kinks Are Back!!!!

However, having removed overly enthusiastic edits a couple of times and seen them come flooding back, I appear to be the only person worried about fancruft so I guess I'll stand aside - unless somebody else wants to tamp things down to a more realistic level. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Although I suppose I should spell it "fanKruft". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I am dubious about the Kinks reunion and think that at this point we should NOT change this article, pretending that they're back: http://www.wbur.org/artery/2018/07/05/the-kinks-reunion-rumors - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The Kinks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The Kinks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles
Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. – Matthew  - (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ray, Dave, Mick and Dalton
That's them on Channel 4. Seem pretty well form, hm?


 * Showing up at a PR event isn't reforming. Ray had an October interview in which he indicated he and Dave are recording with a drum machine, but no drummer and no bass player and no plans for an issue. {https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ray-davies-arthur-reissue-interview-892969/} I still say the infobox listing of "- present" is misleading to the casual reader ... but, whatever. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That October interview, I remember reading it, back in September, David. I think it dates from June or July. The Mad Hatter (talk)


 * When they stun the world with Face to Face to Face or Arthur Jr., The Resurrection of the British Empire then I will happily eat all my doubtful words. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "The Davies brothers have been largely recording with drum machines to flesh out their demos" and "“I haven’t spoken to John about this yet,” says Davies. “I did see him last year, and I might reach out soon, perhaps November. Dave also has a couple of guys in mind that he likes." https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ray-davies-arthur-reissue-interview-892969/ So no, they haven't rejoined The Kinks, as of yet, and there's no reason to assume that Gosling is under consideration to re-join. Incidentally, Ray considered asking Quaife to re-join in 1978, said that Quaife and Avory were to record with The Kinks in 1998, and said that Quaife wanted to rejoin in 2008 (which Quaife denied)--so all of this should be taken with a grain of salt.Preservedmoose (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Membership
There has been no announcement of Dalton, Gosling, or Avory rejoining the band. They should not be included as present band members, unless a quote from Ray, Dave, or the band's management/an official press release suggests otherwise.

Additionally, Gordon John Edwards and Andy Pyle were considered band members as they appeared in promo shots and videos from their respective tenures, as well as performed repeatedly on stage. Pyle did some studio work with the band, whereas Edwards was slated to, but didn't show up to the scheduled sessions. Haley performed with the band live for a number of years but did not record with them. They should be included as band members, unless a quote from Ray, Dave, or the band's management/an official press release suggests otherwise.Preservedmoose (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that this article isn't a fan site. Let's keep weekly updates on rumors and interview hints and speculation about who might do what out of it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I got the message the first time. The only reason I wrote that “fan site” update is because other users seem insistent on listing Avory (and also Dalton and Gosling (for some reason)) as current bandmembers. The only confirmed current members of The Kinks are the Davies brothers. Preservedmoose (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

they haven't reformed - yet, anyway
The latest story referenced in the article shows that the hopeful comments about the Kinks getting back together have not (yet) happened. So we shouldn't have "2018-present" in the infobox. When there's a real announcement about it - some recording sessions, a release or a release date - then we can jump all over it. But we shouldn't mislead the casual reader. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is still the case 10 months later. Ever-hopeful editors keep putting "2018-present" in the "active" portion of the infobox, which is confusing to casual readers (for whom the infobox may be all they see) wondernig what this activity is since there have been no records, no performances, or anything other than casual comments about possibilities made to a few press people. I remove the listing every now and then but apparently hope springs eternal. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible reunion
We had more a dozen or more references to interviews, comments or twitter postings (!) by Ray or Dave about maybe a reunion or maybe not. It was really bogging the article down; we don't need to list every time a reporter mentions it in a story. I have removed several of them and shifted the "Possible reunion" subhead back one paragraph, to cover the start of the speculation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

1964-1996
From what I’m reading, it appears to me that the last time the Kinks both recorded new material and performed live was 1996, and that the reference an author made to the band last being together at a birthday party in 1997 was literally the last time the individuals were in a room together, but not that they were an active band. Personally I think it should remain that the band broke up in 1996, but I’ll leave it up to the consensus. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lola "clang" description.
The description is that the "clang" in the intro is created by the combination of a dobro and a martin guitar. The resonator guitar used sounds like a national guitar with a completely different sound and cone design than a dobro. It sounds more like a national duolian, a metal bodied single cone guitar that does not have the dobro's cast aluminum "spider" bridge support or sustain. GuitarTesseract (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sounds like you have some experience with these guitars. I do not, but I do have Doug Hinman's book, so I'll quote the relevant passage here: "Ray [Davies] recalls later: 'I remember going into a music store on Shaftesbury Avenue in London when we were about to make "Lola". I said, "I want to get a really good guitar sound on this record, I want a Martin." And in the corner they had this old 1938 Dobro [resonator guitar] that I bought for $150. I put them together on "Lola" which is what makes that clangy sound; the combination of the Martin and the Dobro with heavy compression. (Hinman 2004, p. 140)  Tkbrett  (✉) 16:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon for people to call all resophonic guitars dobros and I suspect Ray did this in the interview. Kleenex and Dobro are both brand names that are used synonymously for a product but the National single cone, tricones and Del Vecchios are distinctly different in design and sound. GuitarTesseract (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , yes, it seems he may have used Dobro as a generic term for a resonator guitar, so I've adjusted the wording to reflect that possibility.  Tkbrett  (✉) 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. GuitarTesseract (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)