Jump to content

Talk:Blonde on Blonde/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title's origins

Cache/connection problems caused recent edits to appear as anon. Monicasdude 01:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the significance of the actual title of the album?

Nobody but Bob Dylan, and he's not talking. Monicasdude 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I have read in Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan that the title could refer to his highschool girlfriend Echo Helstrom, whose light blonde hair and pale skin could have been the "Blonde on Blonde" in the title. Is that worth mentioning? Also, I changed the genre from folk rock to rock, because Dylan hated the term folk rock. Ruckyou 03:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several possibilities about the album title, but Dylan changes his story from year to year. He once said the title came to him during a playback session in Nashville. He later said in 1969 that someone else picked the title. It is likely that Dylan heard the phrase many times in reference to Edie Sedgewick and he just picked it up for use later in a song or as a title. He is notorious for picking phrases out of sentences or statements that make no sense, or have a different meaning when taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.228.8 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The theories currently listed in the main article can be facilely debunked, for then the album would have been named ‘Bob on Bob’ or ‘Blonde on Brown’ (for Sedgwick was known for her “mink” tresses.) It is widely acknowledged that Dylan was an ardent admirer of The Rolling Stones and Brian Jones at that time. Noted writer and journalist Stephen Davis in Old Gods Almost Dead: The 40-Year Odyssey of the Rolling Stones, 2001, Broadway Books, USA, ISBN 0-7679-0312-9 wrote the title of Dylan’s album was an ode to musician Jones and then-girlfriend Anita Pallenberg (who sported identical blond hairstyles). Lately Dylan has distanced himself from this friendship with Jones for reasons we are left to conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StyleIcons (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The theories are those of reliable sources. All are speculative but informed and, therefore, worthy of mention. Dylan was seldom literal, so the Jones-Pallenberg and Sedgwick theories strike me as far-fetched, though that shouldn't prevent their inclusion. Meanwhile, Dylan hasn't said anything to settle the issue, as usual, though he has addressed it. Allreet (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone should round up Dylan's comments on the title and add them to the article, then. 134.117.137.59 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Class B - should be at least GA but that's for others to do, Top importance goes without saying Megamanic 07:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Track Order

Does anyone know how the track order of this album was decided? Does the album tell a story, the musical feel suggests so, doesn't it?

Sorry, but Dylan never read into his music as much as his fans often do. I'm almost positive the song order doesn't tell a story. -Notahippie76

Dylan likely had little input into the track order. He often left those details to the record company as he often lost interest in an album once the recording sessions were completed. In fact, he sometimes lost interest during the sessions themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.228.8 (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is gonig to read this but if you listen to the album with headphones you'll notice that left and right have very diff sounds the left should have more of a old dylan sound while the right has him with his electric side —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.78.5 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LP Sides

Could somebody detail how the tracks were divided across the original 4 vinyl LP sides? I often wonder... 202.168.12.254 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Song Articles

There, now all the songs have their own articles. If anyone knows more than is down for the songs I've added, by all means expand them. -Notahippie76

I'd like to improve the pages, so they're more like the Beatles' ones with infoboxes. It looks more organised this way. I did it for the Jeff Buckley's "Grace", and I think it looks better. G.AC 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cover

Does anyone know why this album's photo was made so blurry? --Soakologist 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The cover shot was selected from several photos from the January 1966 photo shoot. They intended to use a similar shot that was not blurred, but the accidental shot with the blurring was seen as portraying motion, as did similar blurry cover photos in the 1960s.

It is not known who selected the cover photo. Dylan usually selected a photo, as well as Columbia's marketing office, and the best suggestion was agreed upon by both parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.228.8 (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dylan chose it specially from a group of specific shoots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood and 4th Time Around

Hello there fellow wikipedians. Am I the only one who thinks 4th Time Around is remarkably similar to Norwegian Wood? If not, maybe it should be mentioned.Dushkin (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is widely acknowledged that 4th Time Around is a tongue-in-cheek response to the Beatles, Norwegian Wood. Craig Walker (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personnel

I recall reading in Barney Hoskyns book about The Band that although the first few recording sessions for Blonde on Blonde featured all members of The Band, nothing from those sessions made it onto the album (although some material ended up on Biograph and on The Bootleg Series 1-3. In the end, Robbie Robertson was the only one who played on the album, as released (he alone was brought down to join the Nashville musicians) and as I recall, on the inside of my vinyl copy, of The Band members Robertson (as Jaime Robertson) is credited. You can verify what I am saying by looking very carefully at the Dylan Recording Sessions data at http://www.bjorner.com/still.htm#y86 Unless someone has more exact knowledge, this should be corrected, and I will do so now, although naturally, someone with better information is free to reverse the change. Craig Walker (talk)

February 14, 1966 Robbie Robertson was at the session and is thought to have played. If you want confirmation Al Kooper and Charlie McCoy recall him, drop me an e=mail if you want to ask them directly what they recall. Wikipedia@edlis.org (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Style of Article

This article is a near-perfect example of how Wikipedians can focus their enthusiasm towards any subject in a positive, logical way rather than being biased. The person/people who wrote the article obviously are huge Dylan fans but they avoid POV statements by instead using rock-hard fact with citations and all that. This article is a strong model for new users because it shows that bias is not needed if the facts are there. 74.194.168.215 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Five Believers

I believe it is officially named Five and not 5. The Bob Dylan website says Five. PositivelyJordan (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

release date vs. LP chart date

It has bothered me for years why BLONDE ON BLONDE didn't reach the LP charts until the week ending 7-23-66 if it was supposed to have been released in mid-May. For very popular artists one month would be normal (that was the case for HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED). I'm glad this article also notes that unusual time lapse.

Does anyone have access to a library with Billboard magazines for that time frame? I'm thinking there would be an issue earlier than 7-23 that would have an album review, and the date of that issue would be a very good clue as to when it was actually released. I'm afraid I don't - I'm completely inexperienced at researching in old magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatConolly (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not on final record"?

It seems to me that if someone is not on the final record, than they should not be listed in the personnel section. If there was some significance to the sessions they played on, then their contributions should be mentioned in the prose, not in the personnel list.

In any event, there seem to be sources out there that contradict the statement that Danko is not on the final record. See the footnote at the bottom of http://theband.hiof.no/articles/mystic_nights_tmobob.html for example.

SlubGlub (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. BNutzer (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rock's 1st double album

Small point. One source, Time, qualifies the double album claim with the word "significant," implying the possibility that there may be other double rock albums (either that, or just playing it safe), while the other, Rough Guide, states that it is the first. I'd like to drop the word "significant," as muddying the claim. The only earlier double albums I could find, post Ray Charles, are a Motown compilation and a package that included two previously released Beatles LP's. Rough Guide notes that BoB nipped out Zappa's Freak Out by a few months. Since I could also live with keeping the word, I'd like to leave it to concensus. Allreet (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the bold claim but still note Blonde on Blonde's significance as one of the first rock double albums. Also, Freak Out! came out on June 27 - a mere 7 days after BoB. The fact that these albums were released simultaneously (without one double album inspiring the other) adds weight to the idea that there could be an earlier, more obscure contender. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Rolling Stone's "500 Greatest" article characterizes BoB as "rock's first studio double LP by a major artist." Consistent with the three sources, then, might be "BoB is considered the first double studio album released by a major rock artist." One thing about the bolder claim is that all three sources place this among the most notable things to mention, probably because it's of interest to all readers, not just Dylan fans. In general, though, I agree these assertions can be sticky, a la The Great White Wonder being the first bootleg, or downright silly, as in BoB's cover being the first to depict a major artist sporting an afro, a trend soon picked up by other musicians such as Tim Buckley and the Jimi Hendrix Experience.original research Allreet (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As long as we have several reliable sources to back it up, I'm fine with calling it the first significant rock double album. I like that better than "first by a major rock artist", a claim which could have a few loopholes in it. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Heylin pulls no punches in Revolution in the Air and simply says "rock's first double-album." Given four top notch sources, I don't think we need to worry. The claim, rock's 1st double studio album, has been around for years, and it's still standing. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the Inspirations/Analysis section

For the most part, the paragraphs on the album's songs are a collection of poorly connected statements gleaned from here, there and who knows where. After taking a stab at it, I'm convinced it's not worth the effort to try to source, clean up and add to what's here. There simply isn't enough to build on and tie together. Better and ultimately easier would be to start over. For one, Song Analysis warrants its own section, possiby with a paragraph on each song (or at least the most significant ones) based on sources such as Heylin, Trager, Gray, Shelton, Williams, etc. Critical Reviews also deserves a separate section, drawing on the same sources, as well as Rolling Stone, Mojo, AllMusic and the like. This may sound like a lot of work, but broken up and done collaboratively, I'm sure we can not only handle it but produce something worthwhile. I'd appreciate the additional thoughts. Allreet (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with starting from scratch on this section. Moisejp (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Moisejp graciously removed the offending paragraphs. As I see it, the outline for replacing these would simply be the album's songlist. I'll post the full list here - or anyone can. A good approach (if others agree) might be to let editors sign up for the first draft of a particular song by putting their name next to its title. Then add the writeup to the section once the draft is ready. If you find yourself needing a specific source, post it next to your name (e.g., Need Trager or Revolution in the Air) and we'll try to work out the logistics. Allreet (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just posted a first attempt at "One of Us Must Know". It's a little longer than I planned, but there's more to write about with this song than, let's say, "Pledging My Time", "Temporary Like Achilles", "You Go Your Way", and one or two others. Obviously, epics like "Visions of Johanna" and "Sad Eyed Lady" merit more. As for content, I aimed for the most notable things sources had to say with only a few sentences on matters that lent themselves in other ways. Subsequent writeups wouldn't have to address the same issues - recording session, personnel, meaning of the lyrics, music, historical significance - only what the material suggests. On that note, I consciously avoided a back and forth of opinion and speculation. Other songs may merit a more interpretive approach, and that's fine, except where it strays into the wilds. Allreet (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should aim on the short side. Otherwise with 14 songs the section is going to get long and the whole article is going to get long. But anyway, we can write what comes to us, and then look at the whole section later and decide if anything should be trimmed. Good stuff on "One of Us Must Know". Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
PS I'm not sure the "epics" necessarily merit more. But anyhow, let's just play it by ear. Moisejp (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have the same concern, which is why I noted songs that might only warrant a paragraph (or two in one paragraph). That's also why I cut two sentences from "One of Us Must Know". And you're probably right that the "epics" don't have to get epic treatment. For an example of lengthiness, check out the Song section in John Wesley Harding. Nothing wrong with it, actually , though I've had the urge to add subheads to break it up. "By ear" is good. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Definitely aim for the short approach. The individual song articles will be linked, so it is not necessary to cover them in depth within the album article. I would be happy to take any songs that no one else wants. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I was going to combine "Pledging" with "Temporary" and then had the thought that each song should be presented individually. As my entries for "Pledging" and "Obviously" show, synopses that hit the key points can be done economically. I still believe "Rainy Day", "Visions" and "Sad-Eyed" deserve a bit more here. 20:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Being a creature of many second thoughts, I took another look at "One of Us Must Know" and saw that the first paragraph (on studio production) could be lifted and moved over to the song's main article. That would be a snap, except the citations/references need to be set up at the other end. I'll do that tonight and will try to limit other songs to one paragraph. Allreet (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Songlist

Album cover and packaging

There's some interesting stuff in this section, but I think we are going to have to really look for more reliable sources if we want to keep it. I personally love Searching for a Gem, but I don't think it qualifies as a RS by Wiki standards. Moisejp (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Searching for a Gem, which is a gem, probably is reliable in terms of general validity, but not specific verifiability. Let's see what alternative information is available. The sources and/or info could be posted here for eventual use. Not sure if that's kosher or pratical, but for one, it avoids building the section piecemeal. A bulleted list of sources with page numbers might be enough. Allreet (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have Bob Dylan Complete Discography by Brian Hilton? It appears to have info about the different versions with ot without Claudia Cardinale on the cover, but not much shows up in what they allow you to see on Google Books. It also doesn't have a "Look Inside" option on Amazon. If anyone can read Italian this Italian book on Google Books seems to have info about it [1]. I couldn't find any regular reliable online sites that have info about it. I'll try to keep looking. Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I found a good reference, in French, in Le Figaro: [2] I'll replace Searching For a Gem with it in the next few day. I don't really read Italian, but I think I can make out the gist from the ref above well enough that it could be used as a ref as well. Moisejp (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Le Figaro? Excellent find. The Billboard July 16 article provides some merchandising/packaging info worthy of note. I'm not sure if you can access this, though. If you don't beat me to it, I'll add a sentence or two late tonight (8-10 hours from now), and if you wish, feel free to re-work it. Oh, and the About.com source for the February 14 release of "One of Us Must Know" seems solid based on the author's credentials, as well as the article's accuracy on other counts. Allreet (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"I Want You"

Hi there everyone - I'm currently looking over the "I Want You" article, and I have a question: does anyone know its exact release date as a single? So far I've only seen "June 1966". As BoB was released around June as well (and even that date is debated), I'd be interested in knowing if the single was released before, after, or simultaneously with BoB. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been through all the main bios and a fair number of related side streets searching for dates and haven't seen anything more specific than June for the song's release. The July 2, 1966 issue of Billboard includes an article on page 3 mentioning "I Want You" as contributing to Columbia's strong sales in June, while page 19 shows the song entering the Hot 100 at #90. The previous issue, June 25, includes a blurb on page 16 predicting the song would reach the Top 20, while there's a wonderful full-page ad for both BoB and "I Want You" on page 19. I've searched the previous issues for May and June, and neither the song nor album are mentioned anywhere, at least as far as I can find. The song peaked at #20 on July 30, remained at that position on August 6, fell to #50 on August 13, and then dropped off the charts. One more item (which I just found): On July 16, page 41, an article appeared on BoB's release. It notes that only 3 of the album's 14 songs were "waxed before," including "I Want You". Allreet (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
A few clarifications on these materials. The July 2 issue was reporting sales for the week ending June 17, which indicates "I Want You" was released as early as the first half of June, and the July 16 article (which more than likely emanated from Columbia's P.R. or promotions department) states "I Want You" was one of three cuts released before the album. The June 25 advertisement is for the most part ambiguous, other than proving that BoB and the song were out by then. Allreet (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate you taking the time to dig up all that material, Allreet. This will be an immense help with the article. So, if we take "waxed" to mean "put on vinyl" (which it generally does), would it be safe to say "I Want You" was released "just before" BoB? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The July 16 article supports stating that the single came out first, with "waxed" meaning "on vinyl," "pressed" and the like. As far as chart positions are concerned (if you intend to mention them), you can cover the debut with July 2 and the last four with August 13, since a chart gives the positions for four weeks. Allreet (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The final position was 52, not 50. Allreet (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Blonde on Blonde release date

Nearly everyone cites either May 16, 1966 or May 1966 as the official release date. In fact, Gray is the only source I could find disputing this, though his argument is worthy of note based on the evidence, as well as his reliability. The June 25 ad in Billboard is aimed at retailers (not explicit but clear in terms of the merchandising illustration), indicating the album was either shipped fairly recently or was about to be. That's speculative, of course, so I only mentioned what's on record and left inferences to the reader. At any rate, I couldn't verify the way much of this was previously written, and felt it better to report only that which could be substantiated and remove anything that couldn't be. I suspect sources might be found to improve on this, but absent that, the re-wording/sourcing appears to be within VER and NOT standards.

On related matters, the July 23, July 30 and August 6 issues of Billboard are not available online. August 13, the source I used, indicates the album had been on the charts for four weeks, which supports July 23 as its debut. A better source is needed, but for now, this would suffice. Also, the previous writeup referred to the chart as the Top 200. At the time of BoB's debut, the chart was called Top LP's and only tracked 150 positions. To account for the difference, I wikilinked Top LP's to the History section in the Billboard Top 200 article, which gives the chronology of the chart's title. Allreet (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The infobox release date needs fine tuning. I don't doubt June 20 is close, but Gray is vague, and we can't be more specific than he is. We also can't dismiss the proponderence of sources supporting May or May 16. At this point, that's the "record", and Gray's position is only an opinion informed by circumstances but not sources. BTW, the first mention of May 1966 goes back to Scaduto, 1971, p. 342. As a starting point for discussing revision: "Officially May 16, 1966 (available late June)", with two citations, Trager supporting May 16 and Gray supporting availability. Allreet (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a program on BBC radio 2 last night that said the release date was 16 May (35 years yesterday!). Anybody who wants to listen can here this, and to other Dylan-related programs here. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest edition of Heylin, Behind The Shades, (2011), p.264, states: "since an overdub on "Fourth Time Around" was not recorded until June, and the album did not enter the US charts until the week before his motorcycle accident, a release date of early July is far more likely." I've added this cite to article. Mick gold (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Recording dates

Isn't it a bit excessive to leave the recording dates under each song in the Track listing section? These should be moved up to the "Songs" section, each date with their respective song. BootleggerWill (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary to put the recording date under each song in the Track listing. Other FAs on albums do not have this. However, all the info on recording dates is already contained in the sections on New York sessions and Nashville sessions. So it also seems unnecessary to repeat the recording dates under the "Songs" section. Mick gold (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed recording dates from Track Listing for reasons given above: these do not appear on other FAs on albums, and recording date info is given in sections on New York sessions and Nashville sessions. Mick gold (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

From New York Sessions: "but Dylan was still unable to realize the former and performances of the latter did not supplant the master that was ultimately taken from January 25." I think this sentence needs to be clarified, or perhaps it could be simplified to "but Dylan was not satisfied with the recorded performances of either." Right now there's no citation for the whole paragraph (and I don't have my Dylan reference books with me right now), so I'm not sure if an important distinction is intended. But as it is I don't think it's clear to what extent "unable to realize" is different from "was not chosen as a master take." Moisejp (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I've re-written text in an attempt to clarify these issues. Do you think it's OK now? Mick gold (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
That bit is—I like what you did with it. But I noticed a few other issues small and large as I read through the first half of it just now:
  1. The biggest issue is that the "Controversy over Nashville recording dates" section gives some weight to the claim by Kooper and McCoy that there was only one trip to Nashville, but the rest of the article completely ignores this scenario. I can see that the line "Most sources agree that Dylan resumed his demanding touring schedule with the Hawks" is meant as a transition back into the "mainstream" version of events, but it still felt jolting to me that everything that follows basically ignores Kooper and co. I think we need to find some way to restructure things so that ... I'm not sure how exactly, but just so that it doesn't all seem so inconsistent. Maybe that one paragraph with Kooper's version should be moved to the beginning of the Nashville section. Also, the three paragraphs that follow this para now are apparently under the "Controversy" section but don't seem to be about any controversy at all.
  2. I feel Wilentz's voice is too prominent. I'm sure his study is very informative, but we should try to balance him more with other writers.
  3. Maybe we use words like "master take" too much that may not be clear for the musical layman--well, I'm not sure if there are other terms that we do so--I did notice "master take" and "master recording". I was thinking of wiki-linking to master recording but it doesn't seem very helpful for our purposes. Maybe we can just explain in simpler terms like "was chosen for the album".
  4. There is one citation at the end of the first para of "New York Sessions"--I assume that's meant to cover the whole paragraph? I know some people feel comfortable with one citation for a whole para, but I personally would feel better about adding the citation to a couple more of the sentences in the para. But if people disagree, I guess it's OK.

Mick, I know you have been doing a lot of the writing recently, and so my comments above may somewhat directly concern some of your edits. I think definitely within the next month I'm going to get more time to edit more regularly, and I hope to help resolve some of these concerns. I don't want to be one who is only good at spotting problems, not helping to fix them. But I've written my comments here in the meantime so we can ponder them and try to reach a solution (if other people agree some resolution is necessary) when the time comes. Moisejp (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moisejp
1. I would be happy for you to move the Kooper query on recording dates. The problem, obviously, is that Kooper does not give any recording dates. He just asserts there was only one session, not two. Everyone who has written about the recording schedule, Gray, Heylin, Bjorner, Krosgaard, gives the same chronology of recording dates. As Wilentz points out, there is a problem putting all the recordings into one session, given Dylan's touring schedule.
New Thought on recording dates: Looking at the booklet which accompanies The Original Mono Recordings, October 2010, I notice that dates are given for the recording of each track on BonB. The dates are consistent with those from Bjorner, which are currently in the article. So the latest listing from Dylan's office, and from Columbia/Sony Legacy does not accept Kooper's version. My conclusion from all this is that we go with the version of dates that everyone from Bjorner to Sony Legacy agree upon, and we mention Kooper's version as a dissenting voice.
I've made an attempt to re-structure. Do you think this is better?
2. There is a lot of Wilentz because he is the only writer who has listened to all the recording sessions and described what took place. I've added Gill, Gray, Heylin, Shelton, Marqusee whenever I could find useful comments, and I'm happy for you to add other critical voices, please go ahead.
3. You should do what you think is satisfactory with "master take". This phrase is left over from the article before we started re-writing it.
4. Editor Jeffnesaisquoi has written: (However, it should be noted that a "rainy day woman" was street slang for a marijuana cigarette.) and given [3] as ref/cite. I don't think The Free Dictionary by Farlex is a WP:RS, and I was going to remove it, but would like hear opinion of other editors.
I've removed this. I don't think ref is RS, and no other writer on this song/album has mentioned this alleged slang term. I suspect slang term post dates song.
5. Editor Koavf has written: "The album was re-released in 2010 with new liner notes by Greil Marcus."
Surely this is not right. The Original Mono Recordings contains a CD replica of the original BonB 1966 sleeve (minus the Cardinale photo!). The whole mono package is accompanied by a booklet containing an essay by Marcus, giving his account of the first 8 Dylan albums.
I've removed this, for reasons given.
I won't be able to contribute much editing to this article in the next month, so I'm happy for you to deal with the issues you've raised. I was about to ask you & Allreet & other editors what more is needed before we go for GA. It would be good to add audio samples, but I'm no good at that, and would welcome someone else's expertise. Mick gold (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mick. Oh, I didn't see your newly added comments above regarding Kooper vs. the Establishment and the number of Nashville sessions, so I went ahead and took a stab at resolving it the way I originally suggested. Well, have a look and see what you think. (As I mentioned in my edit summary, I don't think it's perfect, and likely needs polishing.) We could also try to go back to presenting Kooper as a dissenting voice, as you suggest, but if so I think we should try to really stack the information to support the official version. As it was, we seemed kind of wishy-washy, saying on one hand that Wilentz says Kooper's account carried some weight, but on the other hand kind of sweeping it under the carpet. If we decide to go this route, should we remove that sentence from Wilentz? We could also mention Bjorner explicitly as supporting the official version. Moisejp (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moisejp, I think I prefer the structure I proposed: that we write about the recording trips to Nashville, and then have a subsection (Controversy over Nashville recording dates) giving Kooper's version. The reason I went for that structure is that Wilnetz mentions that the songs in the 2nd Nashville sections have an innovatory structure. They include a middle eight section for the first time in Dylan's song writing. That suggests to Wilentz a later batch of compositions. So, to me, it made more sense to read that argument after we have chronicled the progress of the Nashville recording sessions. We could add Bjorner to the accounts of 2 recording session version, as you suggest. I think that Wilentz is speaking as a historian when he writes, "the testimony of two key participants carries weight, especially when set against an easily misconstrued paper trail." He's saying there is some uncertainty in the chronology, but, for Wilentz, the evidence favors the 2 session version. I don't have a problem with that, but, if you feel strongly, we can drop that sentence of Wilentz. Mick gold (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, sometime in the next few days I'll try to restore it to what it was. We can mull what to do about the Wilentz sentence, and look into adding Bjorner. Sounds good. Moisejp (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, Moisejp, for restoring the structure. Mick gold (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shelton

We have two editions of Shelton's No Direction Home in our References section. It'd probably be cleaner to merge them into a single one. In the past, in other articles, we have always used Mick gold's copy of NDH as our source. If it matters, and we want to try to be consistent among the articles, we could use your copy, Mick. But I don't want to volunteer any extra work for you. I'm happy to use my copy if it's felt that this kind of consistency among articles is not important. Just let me know. Moisejp (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that 1986 edition and 2011 edition are 2 different books. When Liz Thomson & Patrick Humphries edited their revised edition of Shelton's NDH, and published it in 2011, they substantially increased three chapters by adding material which Shelton had been forced to cut. They ended the book with Shelton's interview with Dylan in 1978 in London, whereas the original edition had ended in 1985 with a rather perfunctory account of Dylan's gospel albums. It's possible everything that this article needs is in the 2011 edition, I'll try to address that this week. Mick gold (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the Shelton refs to the 2011 edition. Unfortunately one ref (Pledging My Time) is from a Song Index section of 1986 book which wasn't reprinted in 2011 edition. So I've left it. Mick gold (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Allreet has added another ref for PMT as B-side to RDW. Would it be an idea to cut Shelton (1986) altogether now that we don't need it? Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll cut the 1986 edition. I replaced the Shelton citation, because it didn't mention April as the month the single was released, whereas Gill did. Happy coincidence that the two issues arose at the same time. BTW, I just picked up a used 1st edition of the 1986 NDH...and already it's out of date. :) Allreet (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Great. By the way, how about Heylin (2003) and (2011). Does all the info in 2003 also appear in 2011—or possibly vice versa? Mick, do you have the copy of 2011 that's cited here? Sorry to keep finding extra work for you to do! Of course, this kind of cleanup is not the highest priority, but it's nice if we are able to manage it. Moisejp (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Heylin 2003 and 2011 are slightly different and I won't be able to eliminate 2003. I don't see a problem, they have different titles, and different isbns. Mick gold (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
QUERY: the footnote for PMT now refers to p. 135 of Gill, 1998. I have this book and p. 135 is a discussion of John Wesley Harding. Some mistake? Mick gold (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are two Gill books in the Refs section so if the wrong year was possibly given for the citation, the info could be in the other book. Or, of course, it's possible Allreet was using a different edition of the book than you. Mick gold, does that info appear anywhere in your edition of the book cited? That brings up also the bigger issue of sometime before we nominate this, it might be a good idea to double-check that if there are cases where we aren't using the same edition as each other, that for a given book we choose one edition and make sure all the citations match it. I think you and Allreet have added the lion's share of book refs for this article. In my case, I added ref#37 Cott—does it match with ref#97 Cott? I added both the Dunn refs, so no problem there. I added ref#3 Heylin (1995), and somebody else added ref#31 Heylin (1995) which I suspect is a mistake—could it be 1996? (If so, maybe refs#30 and #31 could be merged together.) I didn't see anything in my copy of Heylin (1995) about Ottawa, Montreal and Philadelphia. I think I added the Shelton ref in the ASM description, but I think Mick, you have already updated it to your edition. Anyway, yeah, at some point we should try to have a peek to make sure all out refs are in proper order. Moisejp (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I’ve checked #37 & #97 Cott, they’re both correct. I’ve checked #3 and it is Heylin 1995. I checked #31 and it should be Heylin 1996, so I’ve altered it. I've merged what were Heylin #30 and #31 together. I’ve checked Shelton’s ASM #79 and it’s correct; so are all the other ASM references. Which just leaves my query about Gill and PMT. I had inserted a ref to Shelton 1986 for this point. I’ve already explained on Talk page that this info is not reprinted in Shelton 2011. I had suspected Gill 1998 and Gill 2011 were different editions of the same books, since my 1998 book carries the sub heading “The Stories behind Every Song” but this PMT info is definitiely not in my 1998 book. So to feel confident that these references are correct to the best of my abilities, I’ve changed it to Shelton 1986 which I know is right. If anyone has a copy of Gill 2011, I could discuss the pagination issue further. The 2 Gill titles are similar, but my 1998 copy has 144 pages and, according to amazon, the 2011 version has 208 pages. Mick gold (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sound clips

Mick gold or anyone else, did you have any votes for which songs we should include sound clips for? I could do the sound clips if Mick you wanted to write the little blurbs for them. I'll try to put a note on the talk pages of Allreet, I.M.S. and Riendog in case they want to vote, too, in the next day or so. Moisejp (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone made any suggestions to vote on? I think Rainy Day Woman and Sad Eyed Lady would be naturals, as the opening song and the side long closing song. I am not sure how many clips would be appropriate though. Rlendog (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I guess "vote" wasn't precise. I meant "nominate and then vote." I just meant really loosely, "Does anyone have any ideas?" We did three sound clips each for H61R and TBT, so I guess that seems to be the number we've been aiming for. (I notice now we didn't do any for FW.) I was also vaguely thinking "Rainy Day Women" might be a good choice, but beyond that I don't really have any opinion. I have my own personal favourites, of course, but nothing I could justify as being the most representative or important. Moisejp (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with RDW12&35 as the opening song, with an unusual Salvation Army sound, and I would also nominate VofJ as characteristic of the BonB Nashville sound, and one of Dylan's greatest works. (I tried to improve the VofJ article. Additional improvements would be welcomed.) I don't have a strong preference for a 3rd song, I guess SELL is another extraordinary BonB performance. One could also argue for O5B or PmyT as representing the harder R&B sound of BonB. Mick gold (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like everyone so far is in agreement about "RDW". I'll start with that one. Mick, I liked your idea of "O5B", but I guess we need to get consensus on which two of "SELL", "VOJ" and "O5B" to include. I'd be happy to use "SELL" and "O5B" but, Mick, if you feel strongly that "VOJ" is a given, we could do "SELL" and "VOJ". Of course, if anyone else has votes we can take them into consideration as well. BTW, Mick, your "VOJ" article looks really good. I think with very few changes, it could be nominated for GA. I'll see what I can do about having a closer look at it sometime soon. Moisejp (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on VOJ. I'd be happy to vote for RDW, VOJ, O5B as a good sample of BonB. If a majority favor SELL over VOJ, of course I would accept that. Which one do your prefer, Moisejp? Mick gold (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely go with RDW and VoJ. Choosing between SELL and O5B is very difficult. We have the raucous, rocking aspect of the album represented with RDW and the more poetic, acoustic side with VoJ. I suppose SELL falls into the latter category, but I think that it still deserves a sample, as it takes up a large portion of the album and is such an important part of Dylan's catalog. On the other hand we have O5B, which exemplifies the Chess Records-influenced blues-rock feel that dominates much of Blonde On Blonde, and is not well represented by any of the last few songs we've discussed. In the end I think I'm leaning toward O5B. I'd like to see where the discussion takes this - until then, I'll cast my "vote" as RDW, VoJ, and O5B. I'd like to include SELL as a fourth clip, but I think that's pushing the fair use rules for an album article. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My vote is RDW and O5B and then I really don't have a preference between SELL and VOJ. So far it seems the votes are as follows: RDW-4, O5B-3, VOJ-2.5, SELL-1.5. Should we go with RDW, O5B and VOJ, unless Allreet has a vote or anyone else has any final opinions? Moisejp (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and added O5B as the second sound clip. If it's decided in the end that it shouldn't be one of the three, no worries, we can still keep it in the song's article. The sound clip is only allowed to be 21 seconds long (10% of 3:37) and I made the perhaps bold decision to include only brief vocals, and focus more on the guitar and harmonica. If anyone disagrees with this decision, let me know. Moisejp (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I added a sound clip of VOJ to the "Visions of Johanna" article. If nobody has any objections to it being the third sound clip for BoB, I'll add it to BoB article, too. Moisejp (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Moisejp, I've added your sound clip of VoJ to this article, and added captions. Please comment if you have suggestions. Mick gold (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph in lead

I think this sentence - "Blonde on Blonde has frequently been regarded as the third part of Dylan's mid-1960s trilogy of rock albums" - should be rewritten. I'm not sure the "frequently regarded" is required - if Dylan made folk albums before BIABH, and this is third rock album he made, shouldn't we say that "Blonde on Blonde is the third part of Dylan's mid-1960s trilogy of rock albums"? We can back it up with a few sources if need be. What do others think? - I.M.S. (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)s

Geez, I should read the full discussion before posting "new" subjects. Glad we agree on this. See my comments below. So even "at arm's length", great minds think alike and almost at the same instant. Allreet (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Some "simple" edits and general comments

I fixed two misplaced modifiers, one in the opening's third para and the other under "Visions of Johanna". Also, in the first instance, the elements of the phrase didn't run parallel with those in the body. To see the differences, compare the revisions using View History/prev.

A few comments:

Regarding the trilogy mentioned in the lede section, "frequently regarded" strikes me as a "weasel". Either the album is part of a trilogy or not, even if the characterizatin is subjective. "Widely regarded" would be an improvement, though I favor the bolder "is part of a trilogy" or even better "Blonde on Blonde closed the trilogy of rock albums Dylan recorded in 1965-66", since many writers note this and no one I've seen disputes it.

Under "Visions", the meaning of the Heylin quote is unclear, plus it gets in the way of the paragraph's subject: the difficulty in recording the album. Heylin's dating the song's beginnings is fine, but with "declasse hotel...the heat pipes still cough", most readers won't get the reference to the lyric and second, Heylin is just guessing at the origin, given that nearly every NYC flat Dylan stayed in had radiators that clanged, not just the Chelsea's. The image could have hung around in Dylan's head for years. Nobody can know for sure, and nobody else I've read mentions the connection. Besides, the thought seems out of context here.

I have some trouble unilaterally changing such things, because I respect the intentions of the editors involved and might be off base. There are always a lot of relatively small issues (like the one above) that can be cleaned up with some adding, cutting and replacing. In the environment where I work we discuss such things, large and small, everyday, then come up with resolutions. But at long distance, sometimes the obvious either isn't that obvious or is difficult to convey. The modern day solution to that is webex sessions, as we do with our co-workers overseas, whereas emails and discussion boards are more time consuming than effective. I'm not specifically suggesting this, only pointing to the pain in collaborating at arm's length. Allreet (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's funny that we thought of the same thing at the same time - I'm glad that we agree on it as well. I also like the "Blonde on Blonde closed the trilogy" sentence you suggested as a replacement. I think we should go with that. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Allreet, I think your copy editing has improved the prose, it has polished things I wrote. Also, although I included Heylin's heat pipes image, your skepticism makes sense. I think this WP collaboration is working, thanks to IMS & Moisejp also. Mick gold (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination?

Does any editor still have issues to address before we go for GAN? Mick gold (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In the next couple of days I'll try to have a final read-through and see if I notice anything. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Mick, I was glad when you fixed the part about whether it may have been Rick Danko or William Lee on base on the final New York session—I'd been planning to mention that needed fixing. However, I still think the sentence following that one is problematic ("Robbie Robertson and Rick Danko were the only members of the Hawks playing on the session.") We've just said Danko may not have been playing. Also, presumably Robertson was playing guitar? Readers who are not familiar with his work may wonder? Well, that may not be a problem that needs fixing, but I think the Danko one is. I don't have any immediate ideas. I guess one would be to just cut the sentence (which would be a shame) and then use the two sources to add Robertson to the list of musicians and then say something like "Garth Hudson, Richard Manuel and Levon Helm were not used at the session." But even that wouldn't be really satisfying, because it may be that Danko wasn't either. Any ideas? Moisejp (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, before we nominate, I wanted to move the final handful of "loose" references in the Notes section to the References section, for consistency. It shouldn't take too long, but I just have to find a few minutes to sit down and do it. I'll try to get to it soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm going through the article now. I'm going to add comments here as I notice them. Just so that there won't be any risk of other people editing at the same time "edit conflicts" are they called?) maybe I'll save them one at a time here.
  • Throughout, we have lots of lyrics reffed to Dylan, Bob (2004). Bob Dylan: Lyrics, 1962–2001, but Ref #91 "Sara" lyrics are reffed to Bobdylan.com. If someone has the book, for consistency could we use the book as the source for it as well? Moisejp (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Background: "But Dylan was already trying to formulate the shape of his next album, the third album he had begun that year on which he would be backed by rock musicians." Maybe I'm being overly picky, but it kind of sounds like he began additional albums that year that weren't backed by rock musicians. I was going to just cut "on which he would be backed by rock musicians" but if anyone wants to keep that and has a good way to reword the sentence . . . Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't end up getting very far in my read-through. Oh well. I'll have to continue another day. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for copy editing, Moisejp. I agree with cutting clumsy sentence ("Robbie Robertson and Rick Danko were the only members of the Hawks playing on the session.") so I've done that. I had 2nd thoughts about 2 caption to sound clips, I've tried to explain why in edit summary. We can discuss if you feel strongly. You asked for page ref for "Sara" in Lyrics (2004). It's p.369, but I wonder if there may not be something to be said for accessing Dylan's lyrics on bobdylan.com, because it enables casual reader to see full lyrics online. Just a thought, I don't feel strongly. Mick gold (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, Mick gold. I think your edits on the two captions make them smoother than they had been, and I'm especially happy with the VOJ one. I can live with the "fifteen jugglers and five believers" mention—I was just worried that it might not mean very much to the casual reader. I'll consider what you wrote about Bobdylan.com. I suspect I'll probably change it to the book, because consistency is important to me, but I'll give it some thought. Another option would be to change them all to Bobdylan.com, but that'd require a separate entry for each song in the References section, which would be a bit much. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right about consistency, so I've changed ref to Lyrics.
We have this quote in Critical section: "As critic Dave Marsh wrote in the Rolling Stone Record Guide, Blonde on Blonde is widely regarded as one of Dylan's "best albums, and [one] of the greatest in the history of rock & roll." But there is no ref. Does anybody have this work? Mick gold (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't have Marsh, and I looked through the five reviews in our Professional Reviews table for something to replace it with, but couldn't find anything. But then I thought, in the next paragraph we are basically saying the same thing (it ranked highly on various "best albums of all time" polls). I'm going to cut it and "It was an even greater critical success." If you don't think that works well, we can try something else. Moisejp (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, a good idea to cut Marsh. One query. Article says: "It is considered to be the first significant double album in rock music, preceding the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! by exactly a week." Is this statement tenable since article says that official release date of May 16 is unreliable, and likely release date is first week of July. According to Freak Out! article, The Mothers' album was released on June 27. Not sure what to do about this. Any thoughts? Mick gold (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough one. If we could find some mention somewhere about Freak Out being a significant early double album, we could say, "BoB is considered, along with MOI's Freak Out, to be one of the first significant . . ." Otherwise we might just have to drop the whole issue all together and cut that whole part. That'd kind of be too bad, but if it can't be helped, it can't be helped. We can only work with the sources and info that we have available. Moisejp (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at resolving this conundrum. Please edit if you disagree with this version. I'm ready to go for GAN. I'm happy for you to do the honors and list it, Moisejp. Or perhaps you would like to wait a few days to hear from other editors? Mick gold (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should merge the "first double album or not?" question into the Release section, then we can neatly combine the question of when it was released with whether or not it was the first double album. However, we need a source for the date when Freak Out! was released. Right now the article says June 27, 1966. Allmusic says July 1966. [4] I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but that's what it says. OR, what if we just simplify things, and say the two albums were the first two rock double albums? Previously, we used a source that said BoB came out a week before Freak Out!, right? We can say, "Although it is not clear what the exact release date of BoB was, it has been noted that it came out very close to the same time as Freak Out! and that these were the first two double albums in rock music." Hey, that's simple and clear and solves a lot of problems. I'm going to go with that, and if you disagree, let's discuss. Moisejp (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, is it Buckley that said it came out a week before Freak Out!? The way we had the reference marks, it wasn't clear who, if anybody said that. I wonder if we ever even had a source for this information. Moisejp (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's probably pretty much ready... but did you end up sorting out with Allreet about whether the Gill citation was right or not? Moisejp (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean this one: QUERY: the footnote for PMT now refers to p. 135 of Gill, 1998. I have this book and p. 135 is a discussion of John Wesley Harding. Some mistake? Mick gold (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how much time Allreet has right now, but ideally it'd be great if you two went through all your refs together the way we did, to see the page numbers you gave were consistent. I don't want to add any extra work for anyone, but it seems somewhat likely when different people are working with possibly different editions of books that there'll be discrepancies. Moisejp (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Moisejp, I thought of putting the release question into a footnote to avoid having the opening sentence of the article saying "released in May or June 1966" which sounds oddly tentative.
I agree with your suggestion of putting "the first double album" question into Release section, so I've moved it. My phrasing (Blonde on Blonde has been described as rock's first studio double LP by a major artist) has been taken from Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums. (Perhaps RS are implying that Zappa was not a major artist, since Freak Out! was his first LP?) My footnote (Given the uncertainty over the exact release date of Blonde on Blonde, these two albums were virtually simultaneous.) seems as much as we can say, since we're acknowledging BoB's release date may be anywhere between May 16 and July 9. I took my release date of Freak Out! from the article, since it an FA. I would not alter until I consult an RS. Please let me know if you disagree.
You refer to my query about PMT on 21 September. In my subsequent posting below this, on 22 September, I wrote:
I’ve checked #37 & #97 Cott, they’re both correct. I’ve checked #3 and it is Heylin 1995. I checked #31 and it should be Heylin 1996, so I’ve altered it. I've merged what were Heylin #30 and #31 together. I’ve checked Shelton’s ASM #79 and it’s correct; so are all the other ASM references. Which just leaves my query about Gill and PMT. I had inserted a ref to Shelton 1986 for this point. I’ve already explained on Talk page that this info is not reprinted in Shelton 2011. I had suspected Gill 1998 and Gill 2011 were different editions of the same books, since my 1998 book carries the sub heading “The Stories behind Every Song” but this PMT info is definitiely not in my 1998 book. So to feel confident that these references are correct to the best of my abilities, I’ve changed it to Shelton 1986 which I know is right.
Therefore all the refs in PMT are correct. I have checked all the refs that relate to books I possess and they are all correct. I don't possess Gill 2011 so I can't check those refs. Perhaps Allreet has it, I'll ask him. Best, Mick gold (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I dropped the Gill citation in O5B, converted all Gill 1998s to 2011, and will check all my other citations for page numbers and appropriateness. Regarding the first double LP, it would be perfectly accurate based on sources whose word we accept on most other things to say "it is widely considered rock's first double album". As for the truth (versus verifiability), nobody can definitively say when BoB was actually released and some questions have been justifiably raised, but no source has been found stating either that Freak Out came out first or that it was the first double album. Barry Miles's bio Zappa, for one, doesn't mention it, though he does give the release date, June 27 (p. 117). Meanwhile, we know from Billboard that BoB was available by then. Allreet (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, great! We even got the two Gill books merged into one, all the better. I think we're pretty much ready for GAN! Mick, you offered to do the honours, would you like to go ahead with that? About Zappa, you two have pretty much convinced me that we're OK with what we're saying. Just a couple of tiny things: 1. Allreet, do you have that Barry Miles Zappa book, then? If so, could you add a citation for the June 27 release date? 2. Hmm, the tentativeness of saying "released May or June 1966" in the opening line didn't really bother me at all—after all, that's what we do end up saying in the article, and the lead is supposed to be an accurate summary of the article. I don't think it's going to be too shocking to readers to see some uncertainty in the opening line, and if they want to find out the cause of the uncertainty, they'll just have to read on, just like they'll have to read on to find out more details about anything else we say in the lead. And, personally, I quite prefer the style of having no Footnotes or Notes in the lead. So I kind of preferred it the way it was before you made that change, Mick. That said, at the end of the day either way is not the end of the world, so if both of you prefer how it is now, I'll go along with it. In any case, it looks like we're finally ready for GAN, that's great! Moisejp (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moisejp, I've gone back to May or June. Your point that the lead looks cleaner without footnotes is convincing. I changed it because Heylin is arguing that release is first week of July, and who wants to say "released in May or June or July"? But let's go with this version, it looks cleaner, and then see if anyone is bothered. Moisejp, I'm happy for you to nominate it for GAN. FA, here we come. Mick gold (talk)
OK, I went ahead and nominated it. About the fact that Heylin says it might be July, yeah, I was thinking that, too—that just "May or June" is leaving out the possibility of July. But like you, I think it's the best option overall for now, and we can see if anyone says anything. Allreet, I added that Miles ref for you. Great, so the deed is done and BoB is on the GAN list. Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
What if we just say "released in 1966" in the lead? From one point of view, since the lead is just a summary, we wouldn't have to get into very precise specifics. Moisejp (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that's fine, if others agree. If the user is interested enough in the "exact" date, that information is made available later down in the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
And good luck with the GAN! I'll be there to contribute once the review process starts. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ditto on GAN. To me, the article is ready, though I still intend to make some minor edits. On another front, I think we ought to leave the dating issue where it stands, even though I disagree with Heylin's assessment of mid-July, which he guesses at based on the fact that BoB made its debut on the charts on July 30 (see Shades, p. 264). I find that ridiculous. For example, BIABH took six weeks from its official release on March 7, 1965, to reach the charts (May 8). Highway 61 got out much quicker, with a one-month lapse from its August 20 release before charting. Going back earlier, Another Side took about six weeks to chart and Freewheelin', about three months, Using mid-July, then, means giving BoB two weeks to debut, which is absurd. Of course, the whole problem centers on what is meant by "release." In this case, it's being used to mean distribution, which was obviously delayed in BoB's case. However, the Billboard advertisement of June 25 gives at least three other clues to that: pressing, packaging and promotion. With those three in place, distribution couldn't have been more than a week behind if not already in motion. Allreet (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Batch of "final" edits

I have a thing about passive verbs, for example, "Plato has written" and "Socrates has recalled", so I changed quite a few to active past tense as in "Plato wrote" and "Socrates recalled". In the Song section, the tenses moved to active present, which I thought was good, the exception being Shelton's observations, in which case, active past tense is appropriate since he's deceased. If anyone prefers the original verbs in places, feel free to re-enter them. A couple spots needed other types of cleanup, but remarkably these were few and just one or two bordered on matters of substance. I have just one more edit to do: McCoy recalled one Nashville session, but according to Wilentz, it's not needed that "Kooper claimed" this; McCoy recalled it directly. I also need to confirm my sources/page numbers, which I'll start tonight and wrap up by tomorrow. Having gone over everything, I'm impressed with the great job everyone did, and I'm looking forward to what will be my first GAN process. Allreet (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, Allreet, I think you're confusing the passive with the present perfect. The passive would be "it was said" whereas "he has said" is the present perfect. The present perfect is often appropriate when no time marker is given or implied, as opposed to the simple past, where a time marker is given (or at least implied by the existing time line). For instance, "In 1995, the critic wrote..." (simple past, which is good, because we have the time marker "in 1995"), but (no time marker), "He has said..." (we don't know when he said it). So, for an example from the article in the "Second recording sessions in Nashville" section, "March 9 saw the successful master takes of... According to Wilentz, the final recording session produced six songs in 13 hours of studio time...." So here we're talking about March 9 and then March 10, 1996. Then, "The session concluded with 'I Want You', where, as one critic [*], 'Wayne Moss's rapid-fire sixteenth notes on the guitar' sustain the vitality of the melody." For the [*], if we use "wrote" it could be interpreted, possibly, as meaning that the critic wrote it on March 10, 1966, because there's no new time marker indicating otherwise. But if we use "has written" we know that it's not on the preceding time line—it was just some time in the indefinite past, after the event, and it's not important when.
In your edits you kept some present tense verbs ("Gill sees the lyrics as a series of sexual metaphors", "Discussing the lyrics, literary critic Christopher Ricks detects") which I think is very natural. You also kept at least one present perfect ("Critics have observed that 'Lowlands' hints at 'Lownds'). My vote would be for mainly using the present and present perfect, although there may occasional instances where the simple past is appropriate—we'll have to look at each verb case by case. Moisejp (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I may have used the wrong terms for verb tenses, but passive and active refer to "voice", not tense. "Plato had written" is passive, while "Plato wrote" is active. In present tense, "the writing is affected" is passive, while "this affects the writing" is active. Generally, tenses should be consistent, whereas voice can be mixed liberally. My primary objection to the passive is that I think we were leaning too heavily on it for the attributions and that it deadened the reading. That's subjective, but to me, passive tends to keep the reader at arm's length, whereas active voice is by definition more immediate and in my opinion, more engaging. I also understand the issue you raise - making clear who is writing about what and when it was written. However, this has as much to do with syntax/wording as verb selection.
About the present tenses in the Song section, as I noted above, these work fine. (Most of the verbs were already present tense, so I made very few changes here.) Certainly, the historical parts of the article would have to be almost exclusively past tense, but there's nothing wrong with present tense in critical sections as long as we're consistent within the section...and the authors are still breathing. However, as I said, feel free to correct what you want, especially if you believe the meaning or reading would be improved. The rule of thumb in all cases should be "whatever works best." Any "second opinions" out there? Allreet (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't have that strong an opinion, actually. If everyone else thinks they sound fine, I'm happy to go along with them. I guess I meant more that in principle, the present perfect would be a more logical tense than the simple past, but I know one must be flexible with principles—there can sometimes be other considerations, as you have pointed out. Moisejp (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, we're both awake at the same time. That's different. Yes, a lot of this relates to opinion, which pretty much explains style: it's personal. Here's an example, though, that I think may explain what I perceive subjectively about the reading. When we write, "Kooper had recalled..." the exact meaning is "Kooper once recalled..." Whether he recalls it now is another matter, but for sure he once did. However, if there's no purpose to making that clear, then there's no reason to use the past perfect case. "Kooper recalled" is better: more direct, more natural, less words, less obtrusive. These qualities don't preclude usage of the case, but they do give us some guidelines for honing style. On that, you're right; I do have a strong opinion. Regarding principles, you're right; they should be flexible and we should have them. Always good engaging in conversation with you...Allreet (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Moisejp: You know, after all that, I realized that I'm wrong about what's active and what's passive. It is a matter of tense, and the choice, a matter of style. One principle I am sure of is that it's always best to admit you're wrong as soon as you realize it. Pardon me if I came off as a bit heavy handed. As always, my best...Allreet (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Allreet! I didn't think you were especially heavy handed. :-) Moisejp (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to bring up request: I added something from Shelton in the Critical Reception section about BoB completed the cycle Dylan began with BIABH, inserting it in front of Shelton's existing quote. Besides liking what Shelton had to say, I think this helps support the lede's mention that BoB completed his triology of 1965-66 albums. The problem is I have the 1986 edition of NDH, and the quote I used is from the page preceding the existing quote. Would someone please change the citation to include both pages, using the numbering from the 2011 edition. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Shelton's "hallmark collection" is on p. 224 of 2011 edition, the same page as his "begins with a joke" and his "remarkable marriage" comments, so no further cite is needed. Mick gold (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Blonde on Blonde/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To meet the more rigorous criteria of the revised B class, this article needs improved sourcing. Additional improvements may also be necessary. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on B class in album articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on getting FA status. I didn't chip in on the review as they're seemed to be plenty of support. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jez! Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My congrats as well. Great article, but is there no other image to include? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jez! best wishes, mick. As for images, one of the mysteries of BoB is that no photos have emerged of the recording sessions. Wilentz didn't find any and neither has any other book I know. If you know of any images, please share your knowledge. Mick gold (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I've seen photos related to the recording session. I'll see what I can find doing a quick Google. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Some interesting material here on the cover photos. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This article includes a picture of the nightclub Odine where Bob and the crew went the night of the first session. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Don Hunstein photos. All watermarked: [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]. Oddly he says they are Blonde on Blonde, but dates them 1965. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah - there were some sessions in October and November 1965, but this is not mentioned in the infobox. Is there a reason for that? SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Impressive amount of painstaking detail on the cover photo, here. It takes a real dedicated fan to do something like that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Musicians on individual tracks?

Is there a record (so to speak) of who played what on individual tracks? I think it would be particularly valuable to know on what tracks Charlie McCoy played harmonica and whether Dylan played lead guitar anywhere. TheScotch (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The liner notes definitely identify Dylan playing lead guitar in the start of Pillbox Hat. Dickjameson (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Take number for sooner or later

Hi Thanks for the great article. Listening to The Cutting Edge it seems to me that take 24 of "sooner"is the one that made it onto the album, not 19. The rimshot right at the start of both (take 24 and the album track) seems to identify it.The Maybe someone with better documentary resources can check it out?

Cheers Tom Daly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.149.160 (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that is what Cutting Edge sessions show so I've changed article to Take 24. Mick gold (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


Album Genre

Blonde on Blonde seems to be one of the few (if not the only) Bob Dylan albums that does not have a genre listed under the general album information. I'm figuring it's folk rock, rock & roll, or plain rock. I can't seem to find a reliable source to back it up. What should the genre of the album be classified as? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorABrown (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It was "folk rock" but was removed in November last year, stating that genres must be sourced. —Bruce1eetalk 06:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blonde_on_Blonde/Archive_1&oldid=1250446839"