Talk:Alex Lifeson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alex Lifeson article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Trial

Hi,
any news about Alex´ trial. January 5th is over ;-) ... response:date for the trial has now been set for May 16th 2005, not known if a plea bargain has been entered...

[edit] Questionable Revision

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex%5fLifeson?curid=2893&diff=0

I don't know the facts, just wondering, which is more accurate? 24.76.141.237 02:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alex Lifeson is Serbian, but Serbia was part of Yugoslavia at the time his parents emigrated, if I recall correctly. But I don't even want to touch the issue of the Balkans. That said, Lerxst's parents are referred to as Serbian immigrants everywhere I've seen it. — Phil Welch 22:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does this really make sense?

He is commonly regarded as one of the most underrated rock guitarists of all time.

If it's common that he's considered underrated, doesn't that make him really not underrated?

Hmm not really. He is generally well known, it's just that he is underrated amongst the people that know him. Those people don't rate him as good as he really is. It doesn't really matter how many people underrate him. I hope you understand what I mean :) ( Davehard 15:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) )
The concepts of "underrated" and "overrated" are both entirely POV. I question the encyclopedic value of such a statement, whether it makes sense or not (which I don't think it does.) Druff 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding!

Alex is right up there with all the guitar greats in my estimation. He is a very accomplished musician as all the members of RUSH are. Outstanding!--Bumpusmills1 09:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alex Lifeson is regarded within rock musician circles, but if you want a really underrated guitarist, try Lerxst's fellow Canadian, Ian Crichton of Saga.

[edit] Family?

It has long been known that Alex's wife is/was named Charlene (dating back to the thanks-to's on the [[A Farewell To Kings]] album), but on this page http://www.nndb.com/people/548/000025473/ it says his wife is named Michelle. Has he been divorced and remarried, or is his wife's name Charlene Michelle or Michelle Charlene, or some such combination?--MarshallStack 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Alex Lifeson's wife is Charlene. Michelle is the wife of his son, Justin. -- Sassue2u 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned about The Omega Concern (Really)

First post here.... I love the Lifeson article. Wouldn't change a thing. OK, one thing bothers me: Aren't we taking the Omega Concern a little seriously? It's always been my impression that it's just a running in-joke that Alex and the band use to ascribe his pet inventions to. He made a special guitar stand, he made a couple of minor gadgets for his bandmates... I don't see any proof here that he's got a major operation going. Someone cite me something to prove me wrong, otherwise, I respectfully request that we tone down the Omega stuff -- give it a single line or so -- So we don't look silly for taking what is essentially an in-joke for Alex and turning it into a major Internet chin-rubbing head-scratching thing.

I want NPOV, and I also kind of have the image in my mind that I would like it if Alex would approve of his Bio here. (And this is of course purely hypothetical, but...) If he were to look at this article, would he think we've done a good job? I think he would... But I think we may be missing the point of "The Omega Concern"... I believe it's a running in-joke that's not really worth mentioning in the abstract, the lead paragraph. It might make for a good one-line note somewhere down the page. Again, I welcome anyone to cite me if I'm wrong, but I think "The Omega Concern" should be reduced to a one-line mention, for example: "Alex has built X, Y, and Z for his use, Geddy's, Neils... Alex has, perhaps jokingly, referred to his enterprise as The Omega Concern." (Sorry, best I can do. I'm tired...) Absent proof that he's done anything more substantial than this, I say we eliminate over-informing everybody on the subject of THE OMEGA CONCERN. Really.

Thanks!

You are correct in that it is a bit of a joke. Neil needed a book stand while we were recording years ago so I built one from spare airplane model parts. I couldn't find a guitar stand that suited me so I designed one that was available for a time through Venemann Music exclusively. The name appealed to me because is sounded like some mysterious, covert corporation. It has always been an inside joke with us.

Yes, I do approve of the Bio!

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aledit (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 09:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on that, I've completed the redirect from Omega Concern. CovenantD 09:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for jumping in. I appreciate the help. I think what I'm asking about, which I'm too timid to do myself at the moment, is to *remove* "he owns and operates a small consumer-products design, engineering, and manufacturing firm The Omega Concern;" from the abstract... is that what it's properly called? Do I mean the "lead"? I know I should "be bold" and just go do it, but I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment. I don't feel at the moment like editing something that I'm not sure what it's even called. I'm a little new here. (as an editor, anyway)  : ) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - I promise I'll "be more bold" in the future, but I've burned my hand on the stove to many times today... damned newbie biters. (Not you, of course!)
The Omega Concern article was questionable to begin with, having no sources at all, so that was an easy decision. I'll leave it to the fans to figure out what to do with this article. As for being a newbie, just remember to cite EVERYTHING (even if you don't think it needs it) and write from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and you should be fine. CovenantD 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As a newbie, I was surprised to see no References section in the Alex article. Clearly, consensuswise, the editorial standard for the main Rush article is being held a lot more stringently than for the Alex a article. I say this because I've had major, almost immediate scrutiny for every edit I've made to the Rush article (which I've come to learn is a Good Thing), whilst Alex's article didn't even have any sources, nor even a Refs section. So I'm glad I'm familiar enough with wikipolicy that I've done Good Things for Alex's article so far. It breaks my heart to go deleting information that I know is true (from the Alex article) if I can't find sources (and it's a big article with no sources except the ones I've put in so far). But now I know that I'll be doing right if I hold the Alex article (and the unsourced statements therein) to Wikipolicy more stringently.
So, to CovenantD, Thank You. And to anyone else: Please understand that I may make some major changes to the Article, especially deletions for statements that cannot be sourced. But I'll be doing it in a way that I feel is in the best interest of WikiPolicy, including (but not limited to) Attribution and Biographies of Living Persons. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Chiming in here with my first comment... I'd really like to see more mention made of the Omega stand in the article, especially since one of the photos very prominently shows how it's used. My recollection is that Alex invented something very important, being the first guitarist to make a stand which allowed quick switching between electric and acoustic guitars. Since his invention, I've seen other bands use similar contraptions, perhaps the very same one that he invented. I specifically recall seeing a music video in the 90's where such a stand is featured prominently, I think the band was either Def Leppard or Bon Jovi. My point is that the stand Alex invented is *important* from a historical point of view and deserves mention in the article. But unfortunately don't have any references to cite that can be linked on the internet. I've read interviews in printed magazines such as Guitar Player where Alex talks about it, and I could swear that I've seen the product actually offered for sale in catalogs with the brand name Omega, but again, can't find an online store that sells them that I could link as proof. I guess my point here is that the current article has *no* references regarding the Omega stand and it really should, and I'm looking for help and support in locating cites, such as article dates in Guitar Player magazine. Tfabris (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Naples/Ritz-Carlton Incident - Expunge?

According to the information in the section itself (although there is no source cited), the criminal charges have been expunged.

Therefore, I think we should consider removing this entire section as well, because

  • It's old
  • It's potentially negative
  • The authorities involved have expunged (wiped clean) his criminal record; We should do the same unless there is a good reason not to.

I'm leaving it in for now, because there is SOME information that may still be current, specifically:

  • Alex (may be) still engaged in civil litigation (although if this is not of significant public importance, I think it should be removed)
  • Neil's book "Roadshow" is a current topic, and it's mentioned here as a reference. Again, I still consider removing the entire section as being no longer significant, but I'm writing this in advance of doing so.

Suggestions welcome.


-- ManfrenjenStJohn 19:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should still be in there as it was a significant event in his life. 220.245.107.141 11:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned. I actually came to the Lifeson page because I hadn't heard how the issue was resolved and was wondering what eventually happened. 65.24.249.74 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Ensign?

What's with the Red Ensign (Image:Canadian Red Ensign 1921.svg)? Even if that was the flag when and where he was born, wouldn't the current flag (Flag of Canada) make more sense? That's what appears on the page for Geddy Lee? 65.24.249.74 04:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Neil Peart article also has it with the Canadian flag. I've changed it to meet that. The only suggestion I could offer is maybe we could put both? Thoughts, anyone? The Fwanksta 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
urgh some people think 1 flag is overkill, 2 would be over the top. Just stick with the maple leaf.harlock_jds 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lerxst and Lerxt

The article mentions the latter as an alternate spelling, but I've never seen it that way. And I consider myself a pretty rabid Rush fan. I'm removing it until someone can find a citation. The Fwanksta 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring Naples Incident

Just because the legal record was expunged doesn't mean the incident didn't occur. It did occur, and it's verifiable in major news sources. Lots of incidents are dismissed, or never come to charges being filed, yet that doesn't mean they never happened. VxP 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

"and has been an integral member of the three-piece band ever since."

Aren't they all? Isn't it a three-legged stool? Take away any of the three and they wouldn't be the same......rock on...and don't get a pick in the eye.... ~ WikiDon 07:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I am proposing that the article Hentor Sportscasters be merged into the section Alex Lifeson#Guitar equipment. A previous proposal to merge Hentor Sportscasters into Fender Stratocaster failed due to lack of notability for Hentor Sportscasters, even as a subtopic of the Stratocaster article. (Discussion at Talk:Hentor Sportscasters.) I agree, and believe that Hentor Sportscasters lacks sufficient notability to stand as its own article - it has only one primary source, and no secondary. But in preference to pursuing AfD, I'd suggest it could add interesting dimension to a discussion of Alex Lifeson's instrument choices to be appropriate within this article. Ipoellet (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naples part 2

The section has been mentioned previously... looking at the article this section is one of the longest on the page? Does it need that much space? A mishap that occurred in one night... in an article about a musician with a respected career that's nearing 40 years?... and it takes up a quarter of the page. Surely that thing can be trimmed down to a short paragraph that touches on the details... contains any req'd refs... and doesn't encroach any space out of the "non-soap opera" content of the page. Wisdom89/ThuranX... can either of you comment (I am picking on you as "vet" Rush editors) 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, you read my mind. I've been wanting to trim it down for some time, but always just procrastinated. I would be all for pruning that section. It reminds me of a non-NPOV WP:WEIGHT. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the the quick comment. I did an 'advert' trim on the gear section. It could use more. After reading that I just didn't want to tackle Naples so I thought I would comment here. (that's the Wiki-way of passing the buck). I will re-read it again myself once my eyes become un-crossed. I never read an article with so many "by then"'s and "by this time"'s. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
PS... since I have your attention... slightly different.. but still Rush topic. I have noticed that Wiki is starting to lean towards merging any/all band "non-single" songs/content back into their parent album articles. Metallica, Queen... a few others... have all been purged of song articles and had their album pages fleshed out wit the the song content and re-directs put in place to link directly to the album page section related to the "song search". Other bands still have an article for every single song... not just Rush. But it seems to be the "lean" of Wiki. Wondering if a few dedicated Rush editors whouldn't push something like that up before someone else comes along and does it all wrong. Is now the time?... Is never the time??? Most of any band's song articles are rampant with original research and "personal touches"... might be a good way to "hoover" out all the cotton candy. Anyone may comment on this... Each Rush song is its own little piece of art. I just don't want to see anything "of substance" get lost along the Wiki-way. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Live

Hi All

I have been studying Alex Lifeson live for twenty or so years....

The "Dog Houses" are brilliant.

Best Guess: Alex still uses the tc-2290 DDD's in conjunction with the 1210 and relies on the 3 G-Forces to make up ground.

Always seems to be a matter of timing.

Alex is so freaking good, he can't even recall how to get through Xanadu.....or Spirit........when you get that good......you really don't need to tell peeps how.......

Just to let you know, my bet is:..........Boss TU-12H Tuner......Volume Pedal, .....Mix Pedal (wet/dry),.....then the signal goes to the 2290's......followed by the 1210, ........equalization and proofing on the way....

Alex just makes us all look like amateurs....

Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.31.37 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)