Talk:Turn! Turn! Turn! (album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denying that something isn't an NPOV violation doesn't resolve the problem, and absolute statements regarding the relative merits of artistic works are self-evident NPOV violation. Unsourced, undocumented statements regarding critical reception which mirror such statements are just NPOV violations in flimsy disguise. Monicasdude 22:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TurnTurnTurnCover.jpg[edit]

Image:TurnTurnTurnCover.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 Wikipedia: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 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

I'm thinking that maybe the song should be at Turn! Turn! Turn! (song) whilst the album should be at the mainspace of "Turn! Turn! Turn!. Though I think this is a good idea, I'm not entirely familiar with the material - which is more famous? The song or the album? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song is much more famous, though they are both famous enough to warrant the ...Turn! (song) and ...Turn! (album) scenario I should think. Cbben (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He Was A Friend Of Mine"[edit]

The traditional song of the same name did not concern the Kennedy assassination. I believe McGuinn took writing credit for this one. As it stands now we have traditional for this album and the two box sets, and traditional with additional lyrics by McGuinn for Live At The Fillmore 1969. How do we get to the true credit? It would seem McGuinn should at least get the additional lyrics credit if not a full credit. Cbben (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only some of the lyrics were changed by McGuinn and this still comes under the Trad. Arr. designation because changing lyrics is often part and parcel of a particular artist's arrangement. It's a very common occurrence in the oral tradition of Folk and Blues songs and has been happening for as long as recording technology has existed and obviously, for a lot longer than that in reality. Blues men often used to pinch songs that were popular within their communities and re-arrange them to make them their own and this would often include lyric changes.

A good example is “Walkin’ Blues” by Son House, which has been covered by many blues artists over the years, with each putting their own spin on it and taking a writing credit for the whole song. In fact the song is only originally attributed to Son House because he was the first artist to recorded it in the early 20th Century. The song had more than likely been around for a long time even when he got a hold of it.

For another contemporary 1960s example, look at Dylan's arrangements of "Corrina, Corrina" and "Honey, Just Allow Me One More Chance" on The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, those both feature lyric alterations but they're still credited as Trad. Arr. Bob Dylan. I think that to say "additional lyrics by McGuinn" is surplus to requirements and not the usual way that arrangements of traditional songs are registered with ASCAP or MCPS/PRS. This type of lyric change happens almost every time a traditional tune is recorded, to a lesser or greater degree. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point about the folk process, though strictly speaking Dylan did take co-writing credit for "Honey Just Allow Me One More Chance" (see the Freewheelin' writing credits). As for "He Was A Friend Of Mine," Rogan in Timeless Flight Revisited lists the copyright, by McGuinn on December 30 1965, as "He Was A Friend Of Mine (new words and arrangement)." I think that wording is how we should list the credit on all four releases, as that is how it is copyrighted and no one has, at least in writing (so far as I know), challenged the credit's accuracy, as in the case of "John Riley." Okay just my two cents. Cbben (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan took the writing credit because if you list something as Trad Arr then you are essentially credited as the song writer. As for "He Was A Friend of Mine", I think that listing it as "traditional, arranged Roger McGuinn" is fine because that's what the credit means - that you've altered either words or music or both in your version. If you listen to John Riley by Donovan for instance it has slightly different words to The Byrds version, which in turn probably has slightly different words to the version Roud catalogued. You'll see from the Wikipedia article for the song, that "John Riley" is also known under different song titles. My point being that The Byrds' recording of "John Riley" could just as easily be credited as "new words and arrangement by McGuinn" but that's silly because that's exactly what "traditional, arranged Roger McGuinn" means and it's the standardised way of terming it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have to disagree for this reason: In the cases above there are various versions of folk songs with all different sets of words, multiple verses (of which only a few are selected by the given artist) etc. etc. But in McGuinn's case he actually sat down and wrote new words pertaining to the JFK assassination. I think Donocvan's John Riley, for example, just pulls upon other words that had already been floating around in the universe. He didn't sit down and write some new words. The JFK subject matter was (relatively) current and in cases of strict "folk process" word variations I think it is more a mixing and matching of already written words floating around the folk universe (perfect example being "Fair and Tender Ladies" from Clark & Olson's So Rebelluous A Lover, which I hope you have had the pleasure of hearing); or slight word alterations akin to the telephone game. In the particular case of the Byrds' He Was A Friend Of Mine however I think the copyright wording is right on. So in sum, or again, my contention is that the "folk process" type of alterations are for reasons other than a writer sitting down and consciously writing new verses etc. (which is why Seeger et al took co-writing credit on We Shall Overcome, for example, for writing verses such as the "we are not afraid verse"). And also it seems too against the grain to go against the McGuinn copyright wording of "new words and arrangement".Cbben (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough. I do disagree because a lot of arrangements of traditional songs do contain new lyrics from the person performing the song and not just random verses that were floating around anyway. An artist writing new words themselves is central to the folk process and ultimately, that's the reason why we get all these different lyrical variations in these old songs. But, you make a good case for this so, I suggest that the credit should be changed to - (traditional, new words and arrangement by Jim McGuinn). I'd be OK with that. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. It may well be a borderline call, but as such I certainly feel better choosing to honor McGuinn's wish to be given at least some writing credit.Cbben (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turn! Turn! Turn! (album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]