Talk:The Notorious Byrd Brothers/Archive 1

Historical background
Some very interesting historical detail has been lost in the last of the current series of reversions. Please would User:PetSounds restore them with inline sources for each assertion. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 00:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried finding how to do inline sourcing, but couldn't locate it. Would you be able to give me the page? Thanks PetSounds 18:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Inline sources can be added using Template:Inote or something similar. The syntax is:. For example: where one of the references is "Jones, Alfred. 'The perfect inline note', Inline notation in Wikipedia (2004)". &mdash;Theo (Talk) 23:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Tribal Gathering
Does anyone know anything about the history of the selection 'Tribal Gathering' from this album? It's written in 5/4 time, which is a very unusual signature. Brubeck's famous 'Take Five' recording from the 'Time Out' LP from 1958 is no doubt the most famous example of music in this signature. The credits on the CD release are Crosby and Hillman.

Wasn't Born to Folow
I included the use of Wasn't born to follow in Easy Rider because it illustrates an early example of rock and roll used in a film sound track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.132.174 (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Refimprove tag
I have removed the tag stating that this article needs additional citations and references. This is because I have added many new inline references myself to remedy the problem.Kohoutek1138 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Personnel
Is Krause's credit of playing the Moog on this album in the 33-1/3 book (I don't have it)? He isn't listed in Hjort as a player on the album.

Also do we really want to include synthesizer programming as a credit among the musicians? It seems to me it might be better to omit these credits, especially since the two credited on this album with programming also played Moog on the album and have received credit accordingly. Or move them to the production section. The way McGuinn describes Moog programming in his interview quote in Hhort, programming is just loading in the sound that then gets played. That sounds like pre-production to me, and as such *if* we were to include programming credits it would seem more appropriate to do so in the production section rather then in the musician personnel section. Thoughts?


 * No, the 33 1/3 book does not list Krause as appearing anywhere on the album. Where did the Krause credit come from in the first place?! Best remove it I say...keep Paul Beaver though, he's definitely on the album. Also, the 33 1/3 book does mention that Gary Usher plays Moog Synthesizer/Electronic Effects on "Space Odyssey", so maybe you might want to add Gary Usher to the Additional personnel section? No need to specify the actual track though. As for Synthesizer Programming, my feeling is take it out. I don't know if you've ever played a moog but the programming is a necessary part of playing the damn things. So including a credit for programming is kind of like including a credit for guitar and a separate one for "fretting guitar strings" - it's kind of part & parcel of playing the instrument. Kohoutek1138 12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I was saying -- like putting a credit for tuning the guitar too. I'll remove Krause and add Usher -- for Moog, and for electronic effects since we have a sound effects credit (so I guess electronic effects needs to be included or sound effects omitted).  And yes Hjort credits Beaver for playing Moog so he stays. Of course if anyone has a source for Krause as a player on the album please let us know so he can be reinstated.


 * The "unknown musicians" listing at the end of Additional Personnel is culled from Hjort, so I should think it would be considered verifiable. Hjort cites the particular instruments listed and states that the players of them are unknown.


 * Yes, I agree, it's fine because you've cited a reference for the whole Personnel section that covers these unknown musicians. Oh, by the way, when you leave a message on a talk page, insert one more " : " than the previous reply used, before you begin writing (as I've done at the start of this message). This will arrange the messages in the proper nesting format, with a slight indentation for ever user's response. Kohoutek1138 12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I see. I'm getting it more and more.  So facts with a reference, whether immediately connected or covering a section as a whole, pass the verifiability test.  Facts without references fail.
 * Does the 33-1/3 book cite any musicians not listed, or does it attribute any additional instruments to those that are? Thanks. Cbben (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's basically it. I’ll post more on this subject to your talk page. As for the 33 1/3 book, I was gonna cross reference the Personnel info in it against the Wikipedia Notorious article and see if anything was amiss. Actually, the 33 1/3 book does give full personnel credits for every song on Notorious, so we could do a whole Track-by-track sub-section like on the Sweetheart article. I don't know whether the article warrants it really but maybe...I'll have a think about it. In the meantime, I'll have a look in the book over the next day or two and let you know if there's anything you should add to the personnel section. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the 33-1/3 book have track-by-track credits on outtakes such as "Bound To Fall"? Hjort is uncertain as to when it was recorded and, accordingly, whether Crosby participated.  He also, by the way, suggests that McGuinn and Crosby may have mixed down or out Ccrosby's contributions to "Tribal Gathering."  That sine bot is fast! Cbben (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, only track-by-track listing for the 11 album tracks plus "Lady Friend", "Moog Raga", "Triad" and "Don't Make Waves". I know you don't own the book but I have to say, don't bother breaking your neck to get hold of a copy...it's a major disappointment. The Track-by-track listing is seriously the only reason to bother owning this book. A third of the book is basically a fan letter to the album, detailing how Menck first fell in love with the record (as if anyone gives a shit), then the middle third is a condensed history of The Byrds up to and including the release of the album (all sourced from Rogan and Fricke - nothing new here at all) and the final third is the track-by-track analysis, again featuring a lot of info culled from other sources (apart from the Personnel details). So, it's a good little pocket guide to the album for the neophyte but it's very lean on any new information for the hardened Byrdmaniac. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up on the 33-1/3 book. When you get back to it, please see whether Crosby is listed on "Tribal Gathering," and if he isn't please let me know.  Also please see whether he's listed on "Change Is Now," as Hjort claims Crosby may be truant from the session at which it was recorded (a new recording from the instrumental version "Universal Mind Decoder," though perhaps the final track is some combination of the two). Good news is that while he's unsure of the recording date, Hjort is sure Crosby is on "Bound To Fall," so I was wrong about that question mark. Cbben (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In Menck's book Crosby is listed as playing guitar and vocals on both "Change is Now" and "Tribal Gathering". Crosby's obviously singing the lead vocal on Tribal Gathering, as I'm sure you know. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

drums
I identified drummers based on Hjort, who by his own admission conflicts with some sources (ByrdWatcher for example) with respect to the drummer on "Tribal Gathering", and "Dolphin's Smile", where some sources cite Gordon not Clarke as the drummer. Hjort points to convincing aural evidence to support Clarke being the drummer on these songs. Cbben (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah that roll during the break in "Tribal Gathering" is pure Michael Clarke -- not unlike the one at the end of verse one in "Eight Miles High". Cbben (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Phasing and flanging, etc
The lede says: ".. extensive use of a number of studio effects and production techniques, including phasing, flanging, and spatial panning." and provides three sources. The claim is repeated in "Production" as ".. a number of innovative studio-based production techniques on the album, in particular making heavy use of phasing, spatial panning, and rotary speaker effects," with slightly different sources. But the only track mentioned in the text to support the claim is "Old John Robertson" and the audio clip is described as highlighting phasing and flanging, with a new source. But it's not just this track, is it? I had expected a mention of the other tracks, but particularly "Wasn't Born to Follow", that have one of more of these effects. I'd be surprised if no source could be found for that particular track. It just seems strange that a claim of "extensive use" in the lede is supported by just one track in the main body. I'm not sure of the exact difference, if any, between "spatial panning" and "rotary speaker effects". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinnacle vs. Height
User Esszet wants to replace the word "pinnacle" in the article lead to "height". No rationale has been offered in their edit summery as to why, but the change seems entirely unnecessary to me. Both words are encyclopedic and neutral in tone, and the use of the word pinnacle is supported by a relaible 3rd party reference.

In addition, both the Chambers dictionary (which I happen to have with me) and thefreedictionary.com define pinnacle as "the highest or culminating point, as of success, power, fame, etc." or "to be the highest point; the culmination of." While height is defined as "The highest or most advanced degree; the zenith." or "utmost degree or height; the culminating point." As such, in the sentence, "Musically, the album represents the pinnacle of the Byrds' psychedelic experimentation..." the two words, pinnacle or height, are virtually synonymous. Therefore I can see no compelling reason to change. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The version that passed GA review has "pinnacle". That's a good argument to keep it. If you two want to fight about something, you can--I'm surprised that none of you take issue with the GA phrasing that presents what is clearly an opinion as if it were fact. Pity User:Jezhotwells isn't around anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, it doesn't make much of a difference to me at this point. Esszet (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies, can you be a bit more specific about what you mean w hen you say, "the GA phrasing that presents what is clearly an opinion as if it were fact"? Do you mean the sentence in the lead containing the word "pinnacle" and the fact that the article states that the album represents the pinnacle of the band's experimentation? If so, that could be edited, with that particular statement being attributed to either Fricke or Connors (I'll have to re-check the sources to find out which it is). I'm just not sure if that's what you're referring to. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is--"pinnacle" is a judgment call, and I will trust the experts to make the right call, but it needs to be pointed out that it's expert X and expert Y saying that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll edit to sort this out. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)