Talk:Jona Bechtolt

Rough Trade - 'chain store' / Record of the Week

Possibly a bit of an anal-retentive point this, but Rough Trade are not a chain (there are only two retail branches.) However, they are a national institution and in this light, getting album of the week carries much, much greater kudos - unlike a national account you can't guarantee shelf placing by marketing spend, they have to actually, shock-horror, like the record.Comrade jo (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Untitled Comments

Jona Bechtolt is mentioned in other articles: The Blow, Adam Forkner, Urban Honking. I believe the data on allmusic.com [1] to be incomplete and minimizing of his role in The Blow.

Oops, I meant to add the discography to the main article, not the discussion! Blamblamblam 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discography and external links added, more information on the way.Blamblamblam 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Jona Bechtolt is considered an important member of the independent music community in Portland, Oregon. His music, both solo and collaborative (The Blow) have received considerable attention. I've put some press links into the article (thereby establishing notability) and deleted the warning banner. Dave Cusick 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure your sources even meet notability standards 198.6.46.11 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bechtolt is probably not sufficiently notable that we should have an article. (Though I personally love The Blow.) Here is the Wikipedia guideline on notability for musicians: Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Those are the standards we must meet. -Pete (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the article meets Criteria #5 on Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). According to States Rights Records, the label was founded in 2001 and has a roster that includes notable performers Xiu Xiu, The Blow and others. None of the other artists associated with the label have notability tags.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty notable, but the article doesn't provide enough sources to demonstate that notability, per the anon from Symantec who tagged the article. I think the {{notability}} tag should stay until the article gets cleaned up. Katr67 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that what it needs is an {{unreferenced}} tag, not a {{notability}} tag.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I'm not trying to sound snarky, but did you read the tag? "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject." I like this better than an urefed tag, as it is much more specific. Because technically there are tons of refs (aka external links) in the article but I'm not sure how many of them meet this criterion. Since several of us are active working on cleaning up the articles of questionable notability, I'd like to see the tag stay, since notability tags seem to help articles get more improvements than unrefed tags. I agree some articles only need unrefed tags--I do that all the time--but once the notability tag is placed, I think it's the burden of the editor removing it to meet its criteria. Because as seen with this article, and in my experience, unless the third-party refs are provided, the tags just keep getting replaced anyway. Please weigh in further on the merits of tagging here: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Oregon#WikiProject Oregon: Articles of unclear notability. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Best way to address this concern does not mean only way to address this concern. I think pointing to the relevant notability guidelines and showing how the article meets those guidelines should be sufficient. I will post on this point further at WP Oregon.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Northwesterner. I think I was the one who originally tagged it, and I did it without detailed knowledge of the Music guideline. It looks like the article clearly meets that threshold. But the one major shortcoming is still that it fails to assert notability in the lead. Adding a sentence or two to the lead explaining his significance, in my view, would be sufficient improvement to remove the tag, even without WP:RS.

Software Piracy

In early 2009, Bechtolt openly admitted during an interview published on Waferbaby.com that he uses illegally pirated audio software for music production. He named several well-known music software companies such as Ableton, makers of Live and Propellerhead, makers of Reason. He also claimed to own pirated copies of software made by Audio Damage, a company with two employees. This assertion was later removed from the interview by Waferbaby. A PDF of the original un-edited interview is hosted by Chris Randall, founder of Audio Damage on his Analog Industries blog.

This caused consternation among small software development companies and the digital audio community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.151.253 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Software piracy section

I just reverted User talk:Kmikeym's deletion of this section. Reasons for the deletion were given as "The whole 'piracy' thing is clearly written by the Audio Damage people and it's just a personal grudge". First, whether or not it was written by "the Audio Damage" people, it is concise, neutral, and well-referenced. Second, it's not just a person grudge. If anything, it has contributed to the notability of this artist (I'd never heard of him before).Disappointedasdf (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I had heard of the spat and was surprised to find it on this page. The Audio Damage guy said he was especially trying to damage his name and made other weird threats in his post, so I was under the assumption that this was just petty vandalism. Perhaps if it was written in a more neutral tone? I think it's pretty clearly an attempt by the Audio Damage guy to make some weird point. Kmikeym (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous software piracy section referenced factual events but the tone was clearly not neutral. Disputes over the use of intellectual property are a cultural hot topic and we need to be sure to enforce the NPOV policy. PopMechanic (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

△ - The Triangle

The duo seems to be obsessed with triangles (evidenced by the "Psychic City (Voodoo City)" video, or the See Mystery Lights album art). I think they insist on the band name being Y△CHT, and not YACHT (as in the See Mystery Lights album art, their YouTube name (Y4CHT) or their band name on Myspace. Should this be mentioned in the article, because "△" is a Unicode character. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unicode_Geometric_Shapes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.197.109 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:JonaBechtolt09.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JonaBechtolt09.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JonaBechtolt09.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)