Talk:Badfinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.		This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
		Suggested article edit guidelines: New additions to articles should be attributed to reliable and verifiable sources, using inline citations per the Project's style guide. The system is very easy to use so please do try to help by following this guideline. Most articles should be written in British English. Some terms may be different from - or non-existent in - American English, and some spellings may differ. For more information, see American and British English differences. Document exceptions on the talk page of the article and here. It is Project policy that (with possible exceptions depending on context) all article references to the band's name should be in title case ("The Beatles" and not "the Beatles") If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment. This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!: Open tasks for WikiProject The Beatles. Edit or discuss these tasks. As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy. To Expand: Apple Records See also: Adopt an article To Clean up: Apple Records discography (wikify). The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. To Merge: To Create: Phil McDonald (engineer). Lennon/McCartney songs: I'll Keep You Satisfied (produced by George Martin), From A Window. George Martin produced Billy J. Kramer song: Magic Carpet (song). Songs covered by The Beatles: Hippy Hippy Shake. The Big Three. Bag o'Nails, where Paul met Linda. Macca single: My Brave Face. Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles tours). Full list & instructions. Lists to complete: Wanted Pics/Graphics: Mal Evans, Flying (song), Astrid Kirchherr, Jimmy Nicol, Cynthia Powell, Alistair Taylor, Ivan Vaughan, Tittenhurst Park, Tony Barrow. We need a better open-licenced photo for the project, to replace the Abbey Road crossing. If you provide a photo, please remove the ReqPhoto tag from the article's talk page and remove the article from this list. Project Discussions: The Beatles history, Individual songs vs longer album articles, Beatle wives, Merge/split proposals Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

[edit] Pete or Peter?

Peter Ham has always been referred to as Pete Ham (see for example http://badfingerlibrary.freeservers.com/SoloBadfinger/PeteHam/PeteHamLibrary.html ), so shouldn't we change that again? KF 11:01 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry, KF. I've never heard him referred to as "Pete". In fact, I've never heard Tommie Evans referred to as "Tom" before either. Like them, I come from the Swansea area, and I was basing what I've written on little snippets I've picked up over the years. But it may well be the case that a lot of people called them "Pete" and "Tom" - you probably know more about it than I do. Can we have a redirect? --Deb

I don't think a redirect is necessary. I've just removed the two r's. And no, I don't know more about them than you do: It's just that on the LPs/CDs I have he is always called Pete Ham. Thanks a lot, and have a nice evening. --KF 19:17 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I agree with the Jan. 2006 wiki message that the Badfinger information presented here is haphazardly pieced together. The general info is good, but there are far too many superlatives to suggest to the reader that it is objective. I don't know if it needs a complete rewrite or just some diligent editing.

Some diligent editing I think. I'll come back periodically, and good to see you've had a crack at it today too. --kingboyk 20:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a professional reading should refer to individuals by surname only once they have been identified by full names (unless there is a link attached). I made these changes where I could, and removed several redundancies. Some loaded adjectives were neutralized, unless they were attributed to a third party ("reviewers said it was wonderful," etc.). It still has problems with flow.

Good stuff. Please remember to sign your talk page comments by typing ~~~~. --kingboyk 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. I'm not normally a wiki contributor. Ronson. 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your excellent edits. You might (or might not!) like to consider getting an account. It only takes a minute or so. Your call. --kingboyk 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I joined. Let's see how this works. ZincOrbie 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)ZincOrbieZincOrbie 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Ham merged

There was barely any information in the Pete Ham article that was not already covered in the Badfinger article. The only notable exception was the inclusion of his suicide note. Is this information really warranted, or does it fall under the category of 'morbid curiosity?' ZincOrbie 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's short. If it's genuine I think it should stay as it sums up his frustrations more eloquently than we could. --kingboyk 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I know it's genuine. The remark about "tragic irony" of Ham's early support of Polley can be left out. I know it is a fact as it has been stated by many, many people, but it's a little awkward here anyway. I'll see if I can source it and find some other place for it.

The removal of Ham's separate biograpy resulted in the loss of his birth/death information, which means anyone researching the man will not be able to use Wikipedia as a source of that information. People of less significant historical importance than Pete Ham have retained a listing. I note Joey Molland has retained a listing. --Anonymous 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That would need to be fixed then. We can also make sure that the Pete Ham redirect is all in the right categories, so people will still find him but will be taken to this page when they click on his name. The reason for the merger was this - that there isn't much which is verifiable and enyclopedic to say about Pete Ham which isn't also part of the Badfinger story. We can certainly think about this, revert if neccessary or at least ensure he's covered to your satisfaction in the article. Note that for a favourite band of mine you may not have heard of, there is a similar situation. To most long term fans of The Shamen, William Sinnott was the guy who made a big mark on the band, brought some soul to the band, pushed them forward. A lot of people regard Mr. C as a rapping Cockney wide boy. And yet, Mr. C has an article because he is notable for things outside that band whereas Sinnott (who also died early) is notable only for being in that band. So, what we've done here isn't unusual or illogical and certainly isn't meant as a slight against Peter Ham. --kingboyk 12:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for removing the Pete Ham article is that there is barely anything to be said about him outside of the Badfinger context. The same applies to Tom Evans and Mike Gibbins (although these two did have some minor exterior work). Both Joey Molland and Bob Jackson have extensive recording histories before and after Badfinger, either solo or with other bands. This exterior information can be pertinent but otherwise would not fit the Badfinger article. I am a huge fan of Ham, he's my favorite artist from the group, but his musical legacy is completely interwoven with Badfinger. ZincOrbie 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pete Ham has only one solo record fewer than Joey Molland does, thanks to Dan Matovina. At any rate, none of this addresses the peculiar lack of biographical information that remains about the man. When was he born? Where? Far less notable people can be found here with their biographical details intact. That the founder of an entire genre of music (PowerPop) cannot be is, IMO, a travesty. --Anonymous 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it a seperate article. I haven't restored any links. --kingboyk 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration Stephen. Although it is still debatable, I have no problem with a Ham article. I'll contribute to it as much as I can to make it worthy as a stand-alone. ZincOrbie 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCartney's piano

The version of this listing as I found it made two references to Paul McCartney playing piano on "Come and Get It" and another Badfinger track. The recordings themselves do not list such a credit, nor could I find such a credit in other reference books. McCartney played piano on his original demo for Badfinger, but I find no credit for him on the finished product. If there is a reference that proves his participation in the recording beyond being the producer, I'll reinstate the references. Rich 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim of McCartney's piano involvement on the two tracks comes from Ron Griffiths and Mike Gibbins. I believe (not sure) that Tom Evans also stated as much. You might want to check the link to Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger and query the author, Dan Matovina. He interviewed the three band members. There is also an unsubstantiated suggestion that McCartney does some yells and "whoops" in the background on the track "Rock Of All Ages," which many people claim to hear (including myself). At any rate, any McCartney connections beyond production is not a big deal. I don't see them as necessary.-- ZincOrbie 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and information here should be verifiable - which it would seem this isn't. --kingboyk 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, McCartney initially wasn't even credited as producer. According to Neil Aspinall (ref. biography), the Beatles were "modest" about their contributions to artist recordings. The original production credit for "Come And Get It," "Rock Of All Ages" and "Crimson Ship" was not stated on the singles or albums.-- ZincOrbie 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember that there were many performances not credited in those days due to restrictions placed on musicians by their recording companies. Clapton played on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" from the White Album and was never credited. I don't think George Harrison was originally credited for his slide guitar solo on "Day After Day" for that matter. Considering the involvement of the various Beatles in the career of Badfinger, it's not hard to believe that Sir Paul may have played piano on "Come and Get It".

[edit] Badfinger members

I added Bob Jackson and Joe Tansin as band members to the infobox. This should complete the recording history of the band - at least as far as composers. Although there were further recording members in the band between 1978 and 1981, their contributions did not involve any original compositions.

[edit] Tom Evans

The link on the Tom Evans name takes you to a baseball player (never heard of him actually). I don't know how to fix that.

I've created a disambiguation page, and also fixed the links here (or, rather, I'm about to!).

I wonder though about the wisdom of having articles/redlinks for each of the members of Badfinger. Are any of the guys notable for anything outside of their work in Badfinger? Will we not end up with either perpetual stubs or repeats of the info from this article? --kingboyk 17:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The only two members listed in the infobox who might justify outside pages are Joey Molland and Bob Jackson. Molland has a recording career outside of Badfinger (3 solo albums, Natural Gas, and Gary Walker & The Rain). Jackson also has an established outside recording history. Tony Kaye (who is not included in the infobox) also qualifies for an article because of his extensive history with Yes. In my opinion, Ham, Evans, Gibbins, Griffiths and Tansin don't require individual articles.-- ZincOrbie 01:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I created Bob Jackson and Joey Molland articles.-- ZincOrbie 18:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Badfinger

I've created the above category and populated it with the relevant articles I could find. Please add others that you know about. --kingboyk 14:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escrow amount

I am moving the discussion about missing escrow money to this talk page. I believe the best course of action is to access the actual lawsuit papers and check the figures. I can do this. Give me a little time, as this will require some analysis (legalese can hurt my brain!). ZincOrbie 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You recently edited some information pertaining to Warner Bros. and Badfinger and the escrow fiasco and I did some more research and found out more information saying that it was 600,000 not 100,000. For instance a Rolling Stone Article claims this

Still Badfinger's worst problems began when the Apple contract expired and the band signed with Warner Bros., which offered more money. Shortly after the 1974 release of Wish You Were Here, Badfinger's second album for the label, an audit of a band account that had held approximately $600,000 of advance money in escrow came up empty. Warner Bros. immediately yanked the album from record stored. It had been bulleting up the charts and selling 25,000 copies a week. Although the band members hadn't raided the escrow account and the money was later returned, the momentum had been halted. "It killed the album outright;" says Molland. "It broke up the band, and Pete died six months later

Again here from the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll ...when Warner Bros., claiming (erroneously it would turn out) that $600,000 in a band escrow account was missing, pulled the album from stores.

If its alright with you I'm going to change the Badfinger article back to $600,000 and adding it was a false claim. If you have any issues with that please don't hesitate to tell me and I'm glad to see a fellow wikipedian steadfastly monitoring an article, for me I do Derek & The Dominos and I think its really beneficial when a person monitors an article, it helps prevent small vandalism that gets hidden and helps to ensure accuracy. Thanks again - Patman2648 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only tell you that the Rolling Stone article is based on off-the-cuff comments by Joey Molland, and it is certainly wrong. I'm sure other articles referenced Rolling Stone, but they would be equally wrong. It is an error that is feeding on itself.

Dan Matovina and myself went through the lawsuit complaint by WB with a fine-tooth comb and there was never any claim about $600,000 missing from an account. What happened is that there were two escrow accounts set up by WB Publishing: Account 1 for $500,000, Account 2 for $100,000. The first account always had a correct balance in it, with deductions being made for two Badfinger albums. WB never complained about this account. The second account, however, was completely emptied - presumably by Stan Polley. Polley was allowed to make two deductions from the second escrow account, which should have left a balance of of about $83,000. So, in a sense, WB wanted to know where the $83,000 went.

When the dust settled in the late 1970s, the courts found Polley owed WB something like $45,000(?) (I can't remember now how they came up with a lower figure). But it has been a blatant falsehood for decades when people claim Badfinger was ripped off for "millions of dollars." When properly calculated, the actual figures are far, far lower. ZincOrbie 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We'd best collate a list of accounts from verifiable sources then (per WP:V) and if there's a discrepancy we can just note it in the article. Thanks for the input (and apologies to Kent for butting in on his talk page, I have it on my watchlist :)) --kingboyk 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that when referencing information, Patman is correct. But there are many legitimate sources for faulty information. The cause has been Joey Molland's word being taken as gospel by reporters when the man is relying on a faulty memory, coupled with his tendency to exagerrate dollar figures. Believe me, Polley never stole "millions" from Badfinger, and Polley was never accused of taking $600,000 from WB. ZincOrbie 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, and I preempted it with a recent edit summary where I said that a music magazine feature based on interviews with band members is hardly a reliable source for fact. It might be best to find an interview source where Molland is cited as claiming it was 600,000 (and if he mentions Polley by name that would be good too) and we can quote him directly; and then find another source which disputes the figure. It's quite alright to be indefinite in our articles; if controversy exists we should document both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusions I think (WP:NPOV in a way). Do you know of sources we can use? --kingboyk 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've changed the article to use the <ref> format (as used at Apple Corps).

There are many articles online citing the $600,000 amount, but they are always offerred in paraphrase. Some are culled from Molland interviews, and others are based on previous articles. Here's a link to a discussion board that comtains article snippets that is closer to reality (and you'll note they reference the actual lawsuit). You'll have to scroll down to Badfinger:

http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=658752&page=81&view=expanded&sb=4&o=&fpart=2

I don't have my documentation handy to verify the amount right now, but I believe $183,333.33 is probably correct. I said $83,000, but it may be $183,333 because the two accounts were accessed by Polley. Remember, some deductions were legitimate although WB claimed they weren't. So the truth of the matter lay in the middle somewhere. If memory serves, Badfinger was allowed to draw escrow compensation for two LPs (Badfinger and Wish You Were Here), and for three LPs worth of publsihing (Badfinger, Wish You Were Here and Head First).

When I get a chance, I will reference my documentation and present it to you and Patman. We can then discuss how the WP article should be phrased. ZincOrbie 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response ZincOrbie, I'll trust you wholeheartedly on the info, usually I just trust Rolling Stone because they're a reliable source unlike some funky internet website where I have no idea who wrote it or what his background in music is but I can easily see where Rolling Stone could have misinterpreted information. I'm glad I ran this by you so that I could find out the truth, Thanks and feel free to undo what edits I made toward the escrow information and send by a big article of the true info so I can learn for myself because I'm not very well informed on Badfinger and I hope to see you around again. Thanks again! -- Patman2648 19:07 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, from Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger, page 227. On December 27, 1974, WB Music (publishing division) requested a writ of attachment from Badfinger for US$175,969.27. A Superior Court judge approved US$20,000, but the rest had to wind through the lawsuit. Matovina does not have the amount in the book that was actually claimed, but Richard Dilello cited it as US$183,333 from the court documents (see link higher up). In October 1975, WB Records (record division) demanded Polley return US $250,000 from a different escrow account, because Badfinger had not finished its contract with the label (page 304). This amount was settled out of court. On December 8, 1978, Judge Julius Title ordered that Polley pay back WB Music (publishing division) US$42,000. So... according to the courts, Polley took US$42,000 from WB Music that was not his. ZincOrbie 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stolen money

Although this issue hasn't come up yet, I would like to address it now since the missing escrow amount is being contested. Molland has often claimed Polley stole "millions" from Badfinger. His amounts have varied through the years (depending on the interview), but has generally fallen between $2 million and $6 million.

Matovina and I calculated Badfinger's income from 1970 through 1975, when Polley managed the band, and we were able to account for most of their recording and publishing income. Polley took a hefty sum from the band from these income sources, but it was a legal amount per his contract with the group - hence, very little could be considered "stolen." We were unable to account for the band's concert income, as the receipts are no longer available, and they were handled through Jeff Franklin's company. We were, however, capable of putting together a ballpark figure based on ticket sales and group expenses.

The amount Matovina and I arrived at was somewhere between $800,000 and $1.5 million. This would be money that should have gone to the band but did not. Noteworthy here, band money also had to be divided five ways; 4 band members, plus Bill Collins (all equal splits, if not counting publishing splits). The amount we arrived at that Molland may have had "stolen" from him was approximately $100,000 to $200,000. The amount would be higher for Pete Ham and Tom Evans, due to the higher split they receive for Without You publishing (which is the cashcow for Badfinger).

I wanted to address this now in case it comes up later. If need be, sources might be provided to verify these calculations are close. ZincOrbie 18:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember Kent, we don't publish original research. A lot of what you are offering up falls very close to the line, if not over it. --kingboyk 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of why I am commenting on it here, instead of putting any info in the article. If the issue does come up later, I will find sources/publications for citation. ZincOrbie 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "They were all strict vegans"

I removed this statement from the lead; needs a source. I've read quite a bit about this band and never came across that. Only relevant Google hit appears to be Wikipedia. thx, Jim Butler 05:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen the "vegan" vandalism on other articles besides Badfinger. You are correct, there was nothing "vegan" about the band. This nonsense, unfortunately, will probably reappear in the future.ZincOrbie 01:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. It's been in the article before, I'm fairly sure. Now we know it can be reverted on sight if it reappears. --kingboyk 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stephen! I'm slowly getting back online. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I saw some quickly-reverted vegan nonsense on a Beatles article and also on another rock band. Someone with a vegetarian agenda, I suppose. ZincOrbie 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Part Two

It seems the article has been getting a little awkward again recently. I will be spending some time (when I can) at cleaning it up, removing some redundancies and lingering POVs. Mostly, I realized the early Apple years was chronologically out of order, and I have attempted to correct this. Unfortunately, it changed the flow from "Panthers Iveys" to "Badfinger - Apple Years."ZincOrbie 03:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Badfinger

I reverted several edits made to the Badfinger article for two primary reasons: (a) They introduced 'terrific' amounts of POV, not to mention unsourced information, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, and (b) they included a great deal of typos. I am not normally the type to revert the work put forth by others, but the person(s) who made these recent revisions needs to pay more attention to detail and remain objective to the topic. ZincOrbie 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect for the 3-revert rule, and since the new editor obviously is unfazed by reverts (and does not read this discussion board), I guess the best strategy now is to wait it out until the editor's motivation wanes; At which time I will revert again. ZincOrbie 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If he's adding nonsense or slander, just revert it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the band to know if his contributions are good or not (although the English certainly leaves something to be desired). --kingboyk 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense or slander. The information (in my opinion) is peripheral to the overall biography, as well as inadequately sourced and poorly written. I suspect the editor is a youngster trying his hand at editing on a favorite subject. My hope is that his enthusiasm deteriorates soon - or he greatly improves his style and content. ZincOrbie 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. Tough situation - I had similar with The KLF. A new editor's contributions were way below par (we were working towards FAs and his edits were barely coherent), but I didn't want to appear to be trying to own the articles. He got tired of it in the end though so hopefully the same will happen here. --kingboyk 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll never have to worry about Badfinger becoming an FA! :) Anyway, you're correct. I don't want to appear possessive about the article, yet nearly all of these recent additions are painful. I couldn't find a single edit that I felt was worth improving, much less keeping. I'll give him a couple weeks to lose interest. ZincOrbie 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)