Talk:NRBQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Infobox

I added an infobox for nrbq, but I do not know how to upload wikipedia images, so I hope someone else could do that... NJMD 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons

does anyone think that this article should mention that nrbq often do songs for the simpsons?

Do they? I know they appeared in an episode as themselves, but I thought Alf Clausen did all the music on The Simpsons. I think there was a heavily q-influenced episode of Sponge Bob, though. 24.195.17.40 02:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just wanna say that whoever did the recent touchup on the Q article did a real good job.

In addition, they've served as the unofficial "house band" for The Simpsons in recent years, contributing several songs and even appearing in animated form during one episode.

This makes it sound as if they wrote songs specifically for The Simpsons. Have they ever? The only songs of theirs I remember appearing on The Simpsons (Me and the Boys, Want You To Feel Good Too, I Like That Girl) were written and released well before appearing on the show. The text should make that clear. Skyraider 22:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information about the other names NRBQ performed under comes from an interview Terry amd Joey did on 10/29/83 with a DJ from WDST FM. Skyraider 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The Al Anderson link brings you to the entry for the OTHER Al Anderson, the one who was in the Wailers. Different guy.


I know it looks like the Adams/Ferguson quartet has 2 US performances from the NRBQ website, but here's the chronology: 1) 7/14 WAMC 2) 7/15 8:00 Turning Point 3) 7/15 10:30 Turning Point 4) 7/16 3:00 Turning Point

4 performances. Skyraider 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 NRBQ performance?

The boys are rumored to have performed together at a private party for Mike Scully's 50th birthday. There was discussion of this on the NRBQ mailing list, but I haven't yet been able to verify this with an independent source. Anyone else have any leads?--Skyraider 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cluelessness ?

At minimum, it would seem this sentennce should have an attribution:

> The situation is largely due to the cluelessness of the pop music scene

In my view, the statement is subjective, possibly offensive, and should be deleted.

cleanup is clearly in order, but tagging the entire article for tone and neutrality is overkill, IMO.--Skyraider 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've given it a going over and I think the more POV statements have been cleaned up. I'm removing the tags. --Skyraider 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Err I don't think so; just check out the intro sentence: "NRBQ is a highly-acclaimed rock band, purveyors of a unique brand of "omnipop"". First of all what is "omnipop"? There is no article about it so I'm inclined to think that it is a term that has been coined by the writers of this article (see WP:NEO about that). Second, "highly-acclaimed" might be true or not, but needs a citation at least. As to "a unique brand", that is all-out POV.
What about this: "The band's music, a rollicking blend of everything from stomping rockabilly to...". "Rollicking"? "Stomping"? That is not the kind of tone that is expected from an encyclopedia.
And that's not all; what about this: "rampant admiration from their peers and fans"; "the band's eccentric sense of humor, while beloved by fans, hasn't helped their commercial potential" (original research and POV); "legendary live shows"...
A lot of this article reads like it was written by a fan, and I can't help but wonder if it wasn't copied from their official website or a fansite. So I'm sorry, but I've got to put the POV tag back. Thanks for improving it somewhat, though. IronChris | (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Taking your objections one at a time:
1) "Omnipop". WP:NEO says "Created terms that add common prefixes or suffixes (such as non- or -ism) to existing words can add clarity, and this may be acceptable in some cases". As "Omni-" and "Pop" are pre-existing and pretty clear in meaning, there would be no issue here even if the authors of this article coined the term. As it happens, they did not. "After 25 years of recording delightfully mindless, perpetually adolescent, wonderfully madcap, romantically stirring, unpredictably bizarre, brilliantly fashioned and deliciously delivered omni-pop tunes, is NRBQ sneaking a bit of message onto its newest studio album, Message for the Mess Age?" Pulse Magazine, March 1994, "NRBQ" p. 50 by Dan Oullette
2) "Highly-acclaimed" The Oulette article cited above goes on to call their music "peerless", but here's what others have to say:
http://www.stereophile.com/recordingofthemonth/1104rotm/
"Stereophile" names NRBQ's "Dummy" recording of the month, November 2004
"There has rarely--make that *never*--been a four-piece combo that could compose and perform such a wide variety of material with such an identifiable style as NRBQ (the New Rhythm and Blues Quartet)." Guitar Player magazine July '89 p. 69 by Webb wilder
"Yes, NRBQ are definitely *happening* today, as much as they ever were, and if they aren't the best band in America, at least they're one natural resource that hasn't had the good sense to dry up and blow away. For that, and for their eight great albums, with many more to come, give thanks. They have the magic that John Sebastian once wrote a song about." Creem magazine March '82 p. 60 by Dave DiMartino
". . . they've played hundreds of clubs, thousands of tunes, and proved themselves, for more than a few critics and fans, the finest American band of the last two decades." Musician magazine January '90 0. 46 by Mark Rowland
"More than just NRBQ's best record, but one of the great records of the '70s (maybe ever!). . ." John Dougan allmusic.com review of "NRBQ at Yankee Stadium"
". . . one of America's great unsung national treasures." Goldmine magazine May 18, 1990 vol. 16 No. 10 p. 12 by Charles P. Lamey
". . . quite possibly the finest rock and roll band in America and, if you've never heard them, you owe it to yourself to check them out." Discoveries magazine May 1998 Issue 120 p. 28 by Robin Platts
"Best band in the universe" --Bonnie Raitt
"They're the best band in America..." -Elvis Costello
"If you don't like NRBQ, I don't want to be around you..." -Penn Jillette
I haven't bothered to visit the library yet for additional material, but I will if I have to.
3) "Unique brand" "brand" is simply a synonym for "type" or "style" in this context, and is a neutral term. "Unique" has neither positive nor negative connotations, and according to the OED simply means "without another of the same kind known to exist". If you know of another band that in addition to their own material has performed music by Thelonious Monk, the Beach Boys, Johnny Cash, Devo, the Beatles, Duke Ellington, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Laid Back, Link Wray, Eddie Cochran, Rosemary Clooney, the Lovin' Spoonful, Blood, Sweat, and Tears, Tom Jones, Jerry Lee Lewis, Sun Ra, Little Richard, J. S. Bach, Big Joe Turner, Lonnie Mack, the Rockin' Rebels, Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, the Davis Sisters, Dave Brubeck, Bruce Channel, and the Everly Brothers (to name a few off the top of my head), I'd certainly like to hear about them. If you object to "Unique", I'd say the burden is on you to identify that other band. Here's what the Penguin Encyclopedia of Popular Music had to say about NRBQ: "Eclectic American band playing nearly evreything" In any event, "unique brand" is not POV.
4) Rollicking/stomping--Here we have a difference of opinion about appropriate tone. Someone who knows nothing about NRBQ and reads this article gains a much better sense of their music if those adjectives are present than if they aren't, or if they're watered down. Nobody else has previously objected to the language, and other articles about popular music, even Featured Articles, are not neutralized to the point of bloodlessness, as you seem to want to do here.
Examples from Featured Articles:
"The instrumentation was funkier, the beat was hard-driving" The Temptations
"Megadeth is known for their distinctive guitar style, often involving complex, intricate musical passages" Megadeth
"The sessions revealed the depth of Cobain's songwriting, which had often been buried under the sonic fury of the band's sound." Nirvana (band)
"The sound became polished and collaborative, with the philosophic lyrics and distinctive bass lines of Waters combining with the unique blues guitar style of Gilmour and Wright's light keyboard melodies." Pink Floyd (note use of the word "unique".)
5) "rampant admiration from their peers and fans" Perfectly accurate. This shouldn't be a problem at all, since, in context, the article text is communicating the fact that a devoted fanbase has not translated to mainstream commercial success. Is any of that in dispute? Re-read the above quoted examples from the music press.
6) "the band's eccentric sense of humor, while beloved by fans, hasn't helped their commercial potential" Far from being OR, this is a succinct summary of a notion expressed repeatedly in coverage of the band. I can produce several separate citations to replace this text, but the flow of text will suffer enormously. POV claim is baseless.
7) "legendary live shows" Re-read the above quoted examples from the music press.
8) "A lot of this article reads like it was written by a fan" Wikipedia doesn't actually have a policy against that. It's generally helpful when articles are written by people who know something about a subject. Fans, by definition, possess knowledge of a subject.
9) "I can't help but wonder if it wasn't copied from their official website or a fansite" Wonder no longer--it wasn't. Had you bothered to look into it before accusing your fellow editors of plagiarism, you would have discovered that for yourself. WP:AGF--Skyraider 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I have seen pages on Wiki with POV tags that I didn't understand. I really don't understand why this one doesn't have a POV tag AND a citation tag.
"It is a perfectly crafted song which had every element one would deem necessary for a hit single except the actual chart position of a hit. For those who have not yet heard this song, it is well worth seeking out." How can there be any argument that this statement (a fair example of the entire entry) is encyclopedia material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.61.150 (talk • contribs).
I agree the above text is unarguably POV. I've added some information and (hopefully) addressed your legitimate POV concerns. Cheers! Skyraider 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced?

I asked for specifics about what needs to be cited here, and a week later, I haven't heard a peep. I don't object to the tag, but without a specific list of what needs to be cited in order to satisfy the tagger, it's meaningless. I've removed the tag for now. Skyraider 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)