User talk:GloryRoad66/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Garagepunk66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Garagepunk66! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Punk rock

Hi Garagepunk66. With respect, I have reverted the changes you just made to your comment of 21:19, 27 October 2012‎ at Talk:Punk rock. You really shouldn't massively alter your original comment after other editors have already responded to it. Substantially altering a comment like this after it has been replied to deprives the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Instead, if you have new or additional points to make, please make them in a new comment below the existing replies. For more information, see WP:REDACT. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I should amend: Minor changes/fixes are OK, but please don't change the timestamp. Again, this confuses the chronological flow of the discussion, since it will appear that the replies were made before the original comment. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're significantly altering your comment again. Please read WP:REDACT and don't do this. If you've got something new to add, add it as a new comment at the bottom of the thread. I'm trying to help you out here. It's important not to significantly alter your posts after people have already replied to them. Otherwise the conversation becomes very difficult to follow. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read your messages. I am new as a Wiki editor (very green). As a writer I love to edit and re-edit myself. I' will do it the way you recommend in the future. By the way, do they have a spell-check devise on the Wiki edits toolbar? It would eliminate the need for a lot of re-edits. If it doesn't, then perhaps you could could send a request for one up the line.

Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Made changes in "Origins" to correct factual inaccuracies and contradictions and put contents in lear chronological order

I made changes in "Origins" (History of punk subculture article) to correct factual inaccuracies and contradictions and put contents in lear chronological order. See my further comments in "Talk" section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of garage rock bands, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Outcasts and The Savages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that when I put the names of many of newly included bands in double brackets, that this ended up causing many of them to go to other bands' Wiki articles, so, I removed the doulble brackets. When I get the time, I would like to create articles on a lot of these bands, but I want to make sure that the articles are carefully worded and researched. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What happened to "Garage Rock Revival" title? New Title Misleading (concerning "Post-Punk Revival" article)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember this article being titled "Garage Rock Revival." As it stands, the title of the article is misleading in how it pertains to bands that are trying to revive the garage rock sound of the mid-60's. Such bands are certainly not trying to revive post punk. Post punk was not garage rock, but a movement that consisted of bands that came much later (after 70's punk), such as Public Image Limited, as well as the goth and no wave genres, etc. Garage rock can never be spoken of as either pre-punk or post-punk, because it was the original form of punk rock (for references and detailed discussion, please read my posts in talk sections of "Garage Rock," "Punk Rock," "Punk Subculture," and "History of Punk Subculture"), so all attempts to revivalize it must be treated as "punk" and/or "garage..." and nothing else.

The title needs to be changed back to "Garage Rock Revival." There is still a Wiki article-link in the side box of the "Punk Rock" article that reads "Garage Rock Revival," but when you click onto it, you get something different that what was expected ("Post-Punk Revival", when it should read "Garage Rock Revival").

Please return the title of this article back to "Garage Rock Revival" (as it should be). New and seperate articles can be created for "Post Punk Revival," if there are any bands trying to revitalize that sound (i.e. PIL, goth, no wave, etc. or other revival genres. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Etymology" section (of Wiki "Punk Rock" article) is vague and confusing, omits key information, does not make clear that garage rock was the first genre to be referred to as "punk rock"

The "Etymology" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article is vague, omits key information, and does not make it clear enough that garage rock (1963-1967) was the first genre of music to be spoken of as "punk rock." It also omits the fact that Lenny Kaye (future member of Patti Smith Group) referred to it, as a whole genre, as "punk rock" in his original liner notes to the Nuggets compilation LP (Electra, 1972) The Wiki "Etymology" section speaks as if the word "punk rock," was used arbitrarily by critics in the early 70's. This is false and innacurate. The critics knew exactly what they were referring to: garage rock of the mid-60's.

In the early 70's certain inluential rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock.

To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread distribution (Electra).

No doubt the previous Wiki editors have read the website, "Etymology of Punk (and the Developent of How the Term Came to be Used in Rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). But they have made a bad misreading of its contents. It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad, Springsteen, etc.). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands.

The current "Etymology" secion of the "Punk Rock article in Wiki, badly misreads the intent of rock critics of the early to mid 70's and makes it seem as if the term "punk rock" was used arbitrarily by these critics, but it was not. There may have some been confusion about what constituted "punk" in terms of contemporary artists of the time, but here is absolutely no confusion about how it realted to the garage rock bands of the mid-60's, which were considered the foundation of the definition.

In the article, "The Shakin' Street Punk Survey," by Metal Mike Saunders (that appeared in the "Shakin Street Gazette" Nov.7, 1974) Sauners speaks of the mid-70's punk movement in New York as a punk "revival" (not as a new thing called punk): "...the punk music revival is now in full swing.". He also talks about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries."

Over a year and a half earlier, Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets had said:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973)

A few years later, Shaw in review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976), describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (keep in mind that, at that time, they often did covers of old mid-60's songs, such as "Stepping Stone," by Paul Revere and the Raiders and "Substitute," by The Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon.

But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975)

Over and over, the rock critics are absolutely clear that they consider the garage rock to be the original (and touchstone) form of punk rock. However, the Wiki "Etymology" section of the "Punk Rock" article does not sufficiently reflect this. It only makes occasional references to these critics and makes their statements appear to be equivical. It does mention that Ed Sanders used the term, "punk rock," to describe the Fugs (in a 1970 article). But, Sanders remarks does not attempt to define a whole genre of music. It is likely that he is using the term "punk rock" in context of how it was probably being used colloquially at the time: to describe garage bands of the mid-60's and how the term could also be used to denote contemporaries who considered themselves to be following in the eccentric spirit of the garage bands. In all likleyhood, Sanders is using the term in exactly the same context as critics, such as Dave Marsh, Lenny Kaye, Greg Shaw, Mike Saunders, and Mick Houghton.

After careful reading of what was said, time and time again, by influential rock critics 1971-1975, there can be absolutely no doubt that garage rock is the first genre of music to be referred to as "punk rock." The "Etymolgy" section of the Wiki "Punk Rock" article must be ammended to reflect this reality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, thanks for providing us with all this info about history of the usage of the term "punk rock". I am also interested in the history of the term. As you probably know there is also the article, by Ed Sanders on March 22nd, 1970 in the Chicago Tribune. In this article, Sanders usage is dissimilar to the later usages 1971-beyond (which use punk rock to describe 60s garage rock) - he is describing his own music. I wonder if there has been any earlier uses found in published form, from early 1970, or earlier, or is it possible that the Sanders article is the first mention of the specific term, "punk rock". Also the link to the John Savage article above seems to be broken. Xsxex (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Garage rock

I don't want to get into much further discussion over etymology, and who called what music "punk", and when, and so forth - simply because I don't think it's very necessary. But, I do agree with you very strongly that the "Peak of popularity" section of the Garage rock article, in particular, is pathetic at the moment. If you were to start expanding and developing that article - maybe by going into some detail about the various regional scenes, and identifying which bands were and are considered the most important in each - you would have my full support. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank you, as always, for your kind consideration. I know that I have been a "handfull" lately, but I have come to have the highest regards for your editorship. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Heading to Ramones article misleading: Ramones definitely not the first punk band

See Ramones talk page for detailed discussion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now made the necesary change. The addition of the word "modern," makes the heading more factually precise and can no longer be considered misleading. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Band's name starts with "The..." (concerning The Shadows of Knight article)

The name of this band starts with "The..." The proper name for them is "The Shadows of Knight." See pictures of album covers and sleeves, etc. on Googe images. I have made the necessary correction in the heading, and in the text, but I don't know how to correct the article title. Perhaps one of the master editors can help me by correcting the band's name in the title of the article. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:THE. This can be a contentious issue (just look at the/The Beatles talk page archives!!) so it's good to get discussion going first - but the simple answer to the question "How do I rename the article?" is (usually) simply to click the Move tab at the top of the page and change the article title - with an explanation of why you're doing it. In that case, you can't do that because there is a redirect already at The Shadows of Knight, so I've asked for that page to be deleted in order that the article can be moved to that title (it can get confusing!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Now moved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Language in overview needs to be more objective (in List of Garage and Psychedelic Compilations article)

If I seem to be nit-picking, please don't get me wrong: I commend the writers of this article on so many things. You have done a wonderful job organizing an extensive list of compilations, and I am deeply grateful for that. And, I fully and passionately share your love and enthusiansm for the topic (keep in mind that this statement is coming from someone who has been faulted for being too passionate about this topic and going overboard in some of my other posts--the other editors have had to try to restrain me at times). So, you might find it surprising if I am having to play the role of "objectivity cop" here.

I think we could modify some of the language in the overview, ever-so-slightly, to be more objecive (and more encyclopedic). In the first sentence we could change the word "staggering" to "extensive." The ending sentence, "As good as most of these albums are, the list of inventive names that have been devised for these compilation albums is a treat in itself..." is too opinionated and reads more like a record review. A better way to say the same thing would be: "These albums have been generally regarded as quality examples of their genres, and are also noted for their highly idiosyncratic titles."

So, I think we could make this slight adjustment to an otherwise fine and helpful article. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I went in and made these changes, which I think will result in a better article. But, I have done so with great care and repect, to retain the meaning you wished to convey, but in more encycolpedic lanuage. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Please be aware of WP:REDACT - you're not really supposed to remove your own comments from article talk pages, though I shouldn't think anyone is going to object in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC) OK, I spoke too soon! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Los Iracundos

Hello Garagepunk66,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Los Iracundos for deletion, because it's not written in English. To request a translation, please visit the translation page. If you'd like to contribute to another Wikipedia, take a look at our full list of language projects.

If you feel that I made a mistake, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Skrelk (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Garagepunk66/Los Iracundos

Hi Garagepunk66, I've moved the article to your user space, follow the link above. I think it would be possible to re-add it to the main space here on English Wikipedia after you a) translate it b) provide multiple reliable and independent sources confirming that the band is notable. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

...and the band seems to be notable in Uruguay, see the news sources for "Los Iracundos". Best. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Los Saicos (Wikipedia article in Spanish)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Los Saicos (Wikipedia article in Spanish), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.buenastareas.com/ensayos/Los-Saicos/6717225.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

HAL made an error. Oops! Actually, the site mentioned above is a Wikipedia article written by fellow Wikipeidans who just happen to be on the Spanish laguage version of Wiki. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Los Saicos (Wikipedia article in Spanish)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Los Saicos (Wikipedia article in Spanish), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ... discospinster _talk 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for translation expansion on Garage rock article

In interest of expaning and improving the article, I found the Spanish language Wikipeia article on garage rock. It has a lot more information and goes into much more detail. Perhaps we could find someone fluent in Spanish to translate some of it--in the pursuit of expanding, improving, and enriching our own article. The Spanish article gets higher marks of approval in its questionaire than ours, so it might serve us well as a model. Don't get me wrong, their article is not perfect, either, and has one imperfection: It tends to de-emphasize the pre-British invasion (pre-1964) American garage phenominon as not to detract from the emergence of the Latin bands in 1964. But, they do go into more detail about practically everything (including revival--The Chsterfield Kings, etc). Though my Spansih is not good, from a glance, it looks as though they attempt to walk you through the subject and teach you about it (as ours should do). Our article just bleets out a few quick things, but does not really develop the topic in an enriching, edifying, or meaningful way. Ours does have better pictures though (thank you SabreBD, once again for your addition), but let's find a few more. Our article should be second to none!!! [[1]] Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have attached the Spanish article to this site as recommened on the instuction page for translation expansions. We could rectify the best characteristics of both articles. For instance, ours could keep its "Garage Started in 1963 perspective, but have the necessary expansions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction in Kinks article: "Golden age" section should read 1966-1972--discussion of 1966 should be placed under "Golden age" section--"Breakthrough and touring ban" section should read "1964-1965"

The "Golden age" section of this article should read 1966-1972, not 1967-1972. It was in 1966 with the release of songs such as "I'm Not Like Everybody Else," "Dead End Street," and "Sunny Afternoon," on singles, as well as the release of their first LP masterpiece, "Face to Face"--Face to Face (The Kinks album) (UK rel. Oct. 28, 1966, Pye Records) , that The Kinks entered what is now regarded as their "golden age." This is the common understanding of all followeres and observers of The Kinks. See Jason Gross' website devoted to this topic, The Golden Age of the Kinks (http://www.furious.com/perfect/kinks.html). According to Don Igancio, regarding thier 1966 album, Face to Face: "This album not only marks the Kinks at the beginning of their peak years (from 1966-1972)...". See also article by Stanley Urbane "Face to Face-Heralding the "Golden Age" of The Kinks," where he says "In 1966...with 4th album, Face To Face, The Kinks took a marked change of direction, and for many, this was the beginning of the "Golden Age" of The Kinks." The Face to Face album is inseperable from the preceding singles (mentioned above) that had been realeased throughout 1966--they are closely tied. They share the same thematic and stylistic preoccupations with the album. In fact, "Sunny Afternoon" was included on the original Face to Face LP, and the other singles' songs are usually included as bonus tracks on CD versions of the album.

Understandably, making this change would necessitate other changes:

• The text discussing The Kinks in 1966 should be taken out of "Breakthrough and and touring ban" section and placed under "Golden age" section.
• The "Breakthrough and touring ban section" should cover the years 1964-1965 (not 1964-1966--as I said, 1966 should be transferred to next section). The US touring ban actually was in effect for a few more years (up through 1968 or 1969), but it was in 1965 that the ban was put into place. So, 1965 would make a better year to end the breakthrough/touring ban section, because after that (1966) the Kinks enter a new phase (a phase that the article mentions was already beginning in late 1965).

And or course 1964-1965 were great years also--the kind that any other band would regard as a golden period. Long live the Kinks!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I made the necessary changes. Now the article is more precise and factual. The text now reads more impressivley and looks great on the page.Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Evil (garage band)

I just edited the Evil page to include the new members with better formatting in the infobox. By formatting the names with a plainlist, you can achieve the list format. Since there are no other bands known as Evil, I moved the page to "Evil (band)." I'll take a look at The Grodes, too. Bonnie13J (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Heading to "That Obscure Object of Desire" article should mention that it was Bunuel's last film

The heading should say that That Obscure Object of Desire was Bunuel's last film. That is a glaring omission and is absolutely necessary to point out at the beginning. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made the necessary change. The heading now mentions that it was his final film. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Garage rock article: added mention of Link Wray influence and made minor change in wording

I added (annotated) mention of Link Wray influence to the article. I also changed the wording (in the part about British Invasion influence) from "to adopt a British Invasion lilt," which sounded silly and unencyclopedic, to "adopted a response..." (i.e. to the British Invasion), which not only sounds more appropriate, but is more correct. I added several references to back this up.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

List of garage rock bands

Hi, it looks like you're the most active contributor to this list article (List of garage rock bands). Lists like this (lists of notable examples, rather than an exhaustive list like a team roster or books written by a single person), are supposed to comprise only notable entries, meaning everything on the list would be a blue link (have an article already). As it looks like you've done a lot of work compiling this list, I wonder if you would want to be the one to go through it, or maybe to "userfy" its contents or to create stub articles on some of the bands if easy enough for you. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

New articles

1. The Creatures: I've added some content and refs.
2. Australian music publications of the 60s: so far it only deals with Go-Set which is already covered in its own article. You'll have to provide more content and start supplying refs.
3. Australian record companies in the 60s: use the refs still in Australian rock, including McFarlane and Kimball. Some of the same labels started earlier and are described in the "First wave" section.

Unfortunately I won't be able to help with the latter two articles for some considerable time as I'm going to be busy with the main Australian rock article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tried the nowiki solution

Since you're having trouble with that blacklisted link, I've jumped in and used the nowiki option. I apologise for my presumption if this annoys you. I also added a reflist up there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Update on New articles

Now that regular transmission has resumed, I'll add the comments I was going to add several hours ago...

'publications' needs more refs and greater diversity, if it only concerns Go-Set then it becomes redundant and will likely be redirected to that article.

'record companies': I've had a go at the Australian rock article's 'second wave' and added cluster refs from Kimball. Don't forget to have a look at 'first wave' too.

I'll be going back to Australian rock and will continue on 'third wave' soon.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, when creating potential new articles consider using your userpage to create a subpage in your own sandbox (see here) or by a userspace draft. Once you're confident it is adequately sourced and notable submit it at Articles for creation.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian rock talkpage material ==

Garagepunk66

Sorry to address you here but your talkpage (and even this page to a certain extent) has fallen victim to the latest "improvement" by wikimedia maintenance editors. See here. On this talkpage the refs below my comments had been added previously (way up there somewhere). As far as I can see there is no reflist nor references 'plate. I certainly don't want these refs displayed under my sig (implying I added them for some reason). The "improvement" adds the refs regardless! Now check your talkpage, try to edit it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll check it. I hope that the people at the help desk can get this problem resolved in a timely manner. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am having the exact same problem with my talk page. I just sent a message to Ghmyrtle. Perhaps he may be able to fix it or find someone that can (or, at least, advise us on what to do). Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this material here as it does not directly relate to Australian rock, the problem was due to maintenance editors changing the way refs are displayed: it is now automatic. One of the refs used at the Kinks section above was blacklisted (presumably after it was placed in this talkpage) and hence editing of your talkpage was thwarted. I resolved this problem by placing two sets of nowikis over the offending ref (it occurs twice) and placed a reflist 'plate under the section where the refs are used so that they display up there. I hope my jumping in (which I try not to do on someone else's entries on their own talkpage!) has not annoyed you.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't mid at all. Thank you so much getting this problem fixed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

To archive or not?

This talkpage is now getting rather long, if you wish you can create archive copies of old discussions, delete them [its your talkpage], or just let the page get longer...

I use lowercase sigmabot III which automatically archives my talkpage (see how to) for me. There are other bots available (see Category:Wikipedia archive bots). If you don't want to use a bot you could create an archive manually (e.g. User talk:Garagepunk66/Archive or similar, [Note: until created this is redlinked]) and move older material there by yourself.

I also use a simple archive box (see archive box) so I can easily check earlier entries. Other archive boxes are also available.

I'm almost certain that if the earlier material had already been archived when the 'maintenance editors' had made the refs appear you would not have had all this trouble with your talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)22:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[I've de-Redlinked the above Archive style as being redundant]shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a relatively new editor, so I don't know how to archive my talk page. Perhaps you could show me how. You are welcome to archive it, if you wish. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll use similar settings to mine and then show you how to change them if you want to.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Your 1st archive should now contain copies of the October 2012 edits above (they're still in here as I didn't want to delete them yet). I'd leave the Welcome message above the archive box. You can now cut and paste whatever you want from this page to that one. Eventually a bot will take over: current setting any messages that are older than seven days will be moved to the archive. When it get more than 100K a new archive (Archive 2) will be automatically created.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Decision time

1. You now decide which entries you want to archive and which (if any) you want to remove but not archive. Cut any that you want to keep out of this page and paste them in Archive 1. Any that you don't want just cut them out and don't paste.
2. If you decide to let the bot run your archive(s) you may not notice any action for a week or so. If you're not happy with the system then delete the code I entered above. If you want to change its parameters then tell me and I'll try to explain the values.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I could keep the Five pillars and Teahouse messages. I don't mind if you archive all of the other threads on this talk page, unless you wish to keep any that relate to the "Australian rock" article--you could leave those. I'd then have an uncluttered talk page for a while. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I leave the welcome and Teahouse messages. I'll manually move all the rest down to just before July 8 disamb note. Remember that you can access the Archive at any time to retrieve information or links.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope this makes your talkpage a little more usable. Archive 1 now has about 36-37 K of stock. I expect more will be added when the bot comes along.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian rock update

I'm leaving you to it for awhile. My brain is in a fugue... I need a rest from this article. Have fun.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I perfectly understand. You have put a lot of hard work into it. Your contributions have made it a dramatically better article. Much thanks!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Garage rock at McFarlane

McFarlane's encyclopaedia was available [online], over ten years ago, at WHAMMO (you'll find a link at the Australian rock article in the General refs section). The website has since been archived by Wayback Machine (and elsewhere). Some new entries were added and others were updated for the [online] version. He usually gives their year of formation and genre(s). Other than the ones you mentioned at Australian rock; for 1960s artists he uses the terms "garage rock", "garage punk" or "proto-punk" at:

The Atlantics (1961, initially as a surf group, 1966), Bitter Lemons (1965), The Black Diamonds (1965), The Cherokees (1961 as beat pop, offshoot: The D-Coys, 1966), Derek's Accent (1966), The Elois (1964, initially as R&B, 1967), The In-Sect (1965), La De Das (1964 as R&B in New Zealand, 1966), The Pink Finks (1965 as R&B), Spectrum (1969, see previous band of Mike Rudd in New Zealand, Chants R&B, 1966), and Tony Worsley and the Fabulous Blue Jays (1964 as beat/pop, see associated artist Toni McGann, 1965). It is difficult to search per artist at the Wayback Machine itself but other [online] sources may be available, such as the front-end index, here.

McFarlane reinforces my understanding that "beat boom" occurred in OzRock first, and was followed by harder R&B styles from 1965 onwards. Most of the early influences on these OzRockers were British invasion artists. In their turn they influenced Oz punk/post punk bands of the 1970s (not just The Saints), and then the "guitar rock revivalists" of the 1980s.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

== How to change settings?

If, in the future, you wish to change the settings for the lowercase sigmabot III: you'll have to go up to the code at the top of your talkpage. Possible changes depend on your preferences:

1. It works OK? Don't make any changes, hopefully it'll work OK in future.
2. 7 days is too soon or not often enough? Change the entry line |algo = old(7d) inside the bracket alter 7d to something else e.g 14d (for a fortnight) or 36h (for a day-and-a-half). Other values in days (d) or hours (h) are allowed.
3. Each archive is too big or too short? Change the entry line |maxarchivesize = 100K alter the value before K but don't go more than 2000. I suggest you don't go less than 35 (which is about the size of Archive 1, now).
4. No messages left? Sometimes, other than the Welcome message I have an almost blank talkpage, no one has put a message in over a week and the bot has moved them all. If you don't like this look then change the entry line |minthreadsleft = 0 where you can make the bot leave however many messages you want. The default is 5 (but I clean them all out: I don't mind an empty talkpage). In this case the last 5 threads will be left even if they are older than 7d.

I hope these explanations will make it easier for you to change the settings whenever you like. I might not be available in a timely manner to give you further assistance... I'd rather edit articles...shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

New article on the Creatures

I just took a look at the article now, and it looks good! I made a few pretty minor changes, but I'll keep an eye on it for any future changes. Bonnie (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed Wool and the Nomads

I made formatting changes to the article - hopefully you can add sources to a couple of the albums/singles. Happy to take a look at it! Bonnie (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the touch-ups on the Mod subculture article. I was looking for words that had the right sound and meaning. You've found them! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mod (subculture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blow Up. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mod (subculture) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:The Beatles. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [2] Sundayclose (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean to attack you personally, but, at the time, I felt that you were not giving me a chance to make my best case concerning the content of the matter, which was frustrating, so I was letting you know that your comments were not helping. But, I sincerely regret that the discussion got so contentious. I apologize for any hard feelings. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I appreciate your message. I have a couple of comments about your message, all intended in good faith:

"I didn't realize that it would be such a contentious issue. I would not have started the thread if I had known that would be the case.": I hope a contentious issue won't stop you from raising an issue on a talk page. That's how articles are improved. And I appreciate the effort you have made on this issue.

"It is usually not productive to give another editor the feeling that you are not open to their ideas or do not recognize his or her right to speak.": There is nothing in my comments (or any other editor's comments) that have even the slightest suggestion that you do not have a right to speak. As for being open to your ideas, I am open to discuss any idea, but yours is one with which I strongly disagree and thus I insisted on a consensus, as is typical on Wikipedia.

Best wishes, Sundayclose (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And best wishes to you. Thank you for your kind consideration. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Invasion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Creation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Garage rock

Hi, I appreciate your edits to the garage rock article, I don't plan to alter anything major like you do, but I was wondering if some early garage bands like the Music Machine or the Swamp Rats should get an extra notice for their early development of garage punk. Just an option I'm throwing out their. I read some of your articles too, which I like. I wrote some too and plan to write about a band called the Contents Are. Hopefully we can cooperate on future articles because I enjoy this subject. Keep up the good work, I am thankful for it. Peace :) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Note: I started a list of female bands on the garage rock talk page for you. Hopefully it helps.

Thanks, so much, it helps a lot!!! Yes, we should definitely find a way to get the bands, that you mentioned, included in the Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)article.

It definitely wouldn't hurt to improve the Pleasure Seekers article too. It ultimately strengthens the already solid article you are developing. I will address these issues in the next day, if that is satisfactory for you.

Note: For future reference, I am actually a male. It's ok you thought I was otherwise, you are not the first :) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I'm sorry! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright, my name on here is not the most masculine, but it is a tribute to the lovely Grace Slick so I like it.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

You've got good taste. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There was this band I thought was interesting. I don't mean for the article, just listening, their name is Wimple Witch (no article, sadly). They seem to have early punk influences, give them a try if you want. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I believe that they were from the UK and are considered Freakbeat, the British equivalent of garage rock. At some point, I would like to put together a section (in the garage rock article) about garage outside North America, and cover some of the Feakbeat bands such as Wimple Witch, along with garage bands from continental Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Latin America, and Asia (i.e.Group Sounds in Japan), etc. There is so much to be found. Most people have no idea how big the garage thing was--we're talking about the biggest rock boom ever (and by far)! I would wager to say that circa "65,"66,"67 there were more bands playing than in the whole last fifty years put together. There was just a staggering amount of great rock & roll made at this time--there are literally hundreds of thousands of records to hear. It is astounding. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is very interesting to me, I barely hit the surface of all those bands out there. My favorites thus far are The Music Machine, The Human Expression, and The Chocolate Watchband (great name). Of course there are others I listen to and more I need to get to. Which is why I'm glad that such a widespread topic is receiving an article to reflect on the several developments. It sure has taught me a few things. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2015

Well, that makes two converts!!!Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S., a great place to start is the 1998 Nuggets 4-CD Box set compilation. It combines all of the four Nuggets compilations into one huge cornucopia. It is a monument for the ages. Unfortunately, it is no longer in print, but you can get it off of amazon or eBay. For freakbeat, there was a similar 4-CD box set called Nuggets II, also no longer in print (but you can go to the same places to find it used).

I actually have the album, it wasn't what got me started, but sure is a fine piece to my collection. I believe it was two years ago or so with me listening to the Shadows of Knight. Still love them, of course, and I have expanded ever since. I should try to get the Nuggets II album, though as I am not nearly as familiar with Freakbeat as I should be. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015

I've heard that there could be over 2000 compilation albums out there! I have about fifty comps, and I've barely scratched the surface. I've probably listened to over 2500 bands on Youtube. You can discover a handful of wonderful "new" bands each day, every day, for the rest of you life and still never get hear a fraction of 'em. There is just so much magical music from this period, it is beyond belief. What we're talking about here is the music of a golden age. The Wiki article serves such an important purpose to introduce people to this incredible music. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FAC input

Hi! Since you're a member of WP's rock project, would you be interested in commenting or reviewing my FAC for the article xx (album)? It's received on editor's comments but no follow-up yet, so anything would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Flynt & The Insurrections, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Folk and The Godz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate Watchband

This article (The Chocolate Watchband) needs a lot of help, to say it plainly. I am not saying you need to do it because I know you have some important articles you are working on. I was just wondering how you think I should direct any editing: should I rewrite large portions of it to fit with found references (which may shorten some of the content), or reference what I can and leave the rest? Any other options you are free to express, I do know though that this band deserves an article that reflects their importance.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Man you are right...the article is lacking a lot of sources! Probably the best thing to do, now, is to leave in all of the present content (best not to remove things that may be good things), but to find sources to confirm what is there--that is, assuming that the facts now there, are, indeed, true. If you see any unsourced things that are obviously incorrect, then you can change and correct them, but be sure that you have sources to back up the changes you make and put your rationale in the comments (in the strip at the bottom of your edit--it will show in the "View history"). Always use the highest level of discernment in these matters. If you think that a change might turn out to be controversial (or if other knowledgeable editors are likely to override it), then it is best to go to the talk page and get feedback from other editors, first. I would be glad to help any way I can. I also recommend contacting Ghmyrtle and Sabrebd: I work in tandem with them constantly on so many major projects. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I'm glad I came to you for them. I also thought I could make a draft on my sandbox, see if you like it, and replace the existing article, unless that is too extreme. The Chocolate Watchband's official website is where they probably found most of their content so I will look their first. You can help if you want, it is appreciated, but I also realize you have other subjects to attend to.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Take what the article already has, but make it better. In other words, try to build on (or modify for the better) what is there, but only for the better. Start with what is there, then work with it. Some changes may be bigger than others, but you don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." If you were renovating a house, you probably would not tear the whole thing down, but would fix it up and add on extensions to accommodate the newborn children on the way. If it is broken, definitely fix it. If it "ain't broke don't fix it."

• Imagine that World Book or Britannica has just hired you to improve the article. What style would you use? Be conscientious of the needs of the typical reader. Avoid language that is bloated or pretentious. Language should be rich, varied, informative, and interesting, but with a noble simplicity. Keep language neutral and unbiased (only chronicle, never editorialize). For instance, I may sometimes be the most opinionated person on the talk threads, but, when I am editing an article, I cast aside my opinions. However, I do take into account that there may be different legitimate well-informed opinions on the topics (and I make it my business to know about all of them--all of the "angles"). So, take these into account, but don's take sides. Find a clear path that shoots like a straight arrow though the terrain. Discernment is key.
• Add citations for every fact covered at least several per paragraph. Try to find a variety of sources for references, not just from one website--only ones that are credible and reliable. Rolling Stone and AllMusic are good for basic, general info. But you will need to find more specific biographies. At the bottom of the Garage rock article are a bunch of good sites and books. Avoid dubious looking websites or sites that just mimic the words that have already appeared in Wikipedia articles (you'd be surprised how many just quote old Wiki articles--and they will not be acceptable).
• Create a specific citation for every time you refer to a information gained from a source. Type in the information just that way you would a bibliography entry on a research paper (detailed and specific).

You may want to bring this topic on the talk page of The Chocolate Watchband article: big chages can be controversial. Get to know all of the other editors who frequent that site (and the other related sites they frequent), particularly the good ones--the better you get to know them and establish credibility and trust in their eyes, the more autonomy they will give you. Prove yourself in the little things before you get to the big things. An unknown editor, even if experienced, is looked on with suspicion when he/she arrives at a new destination--but time does wonders. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for those notes, I have written articles before so I believe I got most of that down. I will go in the direction of fixing what is already their, instead of a completely new draft. May take longer, but in the end it will be a better article. I already started the intro portion and tomorrow I will work on the background. Right now, I wrote my infobox for my next article, No Way Out (The Chocolate Watchband album) in ny sandbox, but i think I will be off for the day. Hope your projects go well and I should be back soon :)

Note: There is a list of ideas for future articles in my sandbox I consider writing. If you are interested, feel free to take one of the subjects, they are down your alley regarding 1960s garage rock bands. Just, if you could, tell me you are doing so, so we do not write about the same thing, thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I finished the No Way Out article about the debut album by the Chocolate Watchband. I love the album and I am glad I got to write about it. I should be able to work more on the band's article tomorrow. I got to some of their early history, but the process is slow. (Still fun though) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I took a look at the new article on the Watchbands' first album and like it a lot. I also looked at the feature article on the band. You added some helpful information in the heading, but a few things:

• It is best to avoid using "loaded" language such as "snarling" to describe singer's style, in the text. Although I fully agree with that point of view, but it does not sound objective and encyclopedic (you could quote a rock critic saying something to that effect in a later part of the article). Also, "rebellious musical structure" sounds a bit off. Wouln't "rebellious musical posture" be better?
• The term "Garage punk" is usually used on Wiki to refer to garage-influenced music that came after the 70s. It is best not to say, "garage punk' as a general descriptor in a Wiki article on a 60s band (although it can certainly be used that way in other venues). This is not a matter of my own personal opinion--I actually agree with you 100%, but we have to take into account the views of the majority of editors (I have had some wonderful arguments on talk pages demonstrating that there is a legitimate point to be made that punk started way before the 70s, and that what came before should not be viewed as prototypical, but actual). Outside of the text in Wiki articles , I often refer to 60s bands as "garage punk" (and most fans of garage do), but keep in mind that, inside of the articles, Wiki still has to work within the nomenclature that has been established for classifications. It is best, therefore, to use the terms "garage rock," "protopunk or "60s punk," or when discussing a 60s band. I wish this was not the case, but it is reality.
• You could bring back mentions of the two movies they appeared in, Riot on Sunset Strip and Love-In's. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

True, I didn't consider these points, and I will mention the last point you made. Some of my sources state it as garage punk which, I guess, got me off track. I also took their descriptions too much to heart, which I usually don't do, so I'm a little upset with myself. I, or you it's fine by me, will fix it shortly I just need to address a disruptive user who is attacking my music articles. Thanks for the help, as usual. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:12, 21 April 2015

No need to be upset--I have to re-edit myself constantly. Sometimes it takes me about a hundred times to get an edit right! And, I agree 100% that they are indeed garage punk (garage-oriented sources use the term all of the time): it's just that Wiki does not officially classify that way (mainly due to larger public misconceptions--knowledgeable editors know better). At Wiki it is certainly OK (and even necessary) to explain in sourced textual narratives that the words "punk rock" and "garage punk were both first used to describe 60s garage rock--it's just not used as the official "classification" or "designation" at this time.

The heading is now looking really good. One thing, in the last sentence of the heading you could slightly change the wording from "...however it was not as distinctive as their early works..." to "...however it is typically not as highly regarded as their previous work... Try to make the statement about the last album's lesser quality as neutral and objective as possible--you don't want this to sound like a review. A good way create a sense of neutrality is to use phrases such as "typically...," "generally...," and "...considered," "...perceived as," "...regarded," etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done and done, I'll get to the rest of the article eventually. I keep getting sidetracked, but at least I have enough references for when I do start. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Twentieth Century Zoo

This article (Twentieth Century Zoo) has been nominated for deletion by a user who doesn't understand the importance of early influential bands (the user has already nominated two pages that were unanimously voted keep). Since you obviously are knowledgeable about this era of music, I would appreciate if you weight-in on the nomination as I know you will consider the experimental aspects of the group. Thanks, and I see the garage rock page keeps getting better :) TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I left a comment on the talk page of that article to keep it. Apparently, the article nominated for deletion was a different article (probably on the same band) from 2008. In any event, I argued to keep it. One thing: be sure to go back and mention more specifics about the sources in the citations (i.e. the full rigor of a bibliography in a research paper). Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do, it was one of my early articles so forgive me for its needs for improvement. It will be on my ever-growing list of things to do. Also, I think your opinion will have a greater chance to be read if it's on the nomination page. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I just left a message on the deletion talk page. However, if that is not the best one, then supply me a blue link to the right one. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (2nd nomination), that way others will officially be able to take your opinion into account. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Check out my comments there!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough, those statements were the truest and heartfelt ones I've read from someone in a while. Your point of view is perfect for the discussion and I'm glad I informed you of it, anyone reading it will surely be swayed in the article's favor. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Keeping this short as "someone" will consider it biased. This (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading) is being nominated for deletion. Could use your opinion. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I put in a comment there against deleting the article. I am glad to see that other editors have joined us in opposing the deletion the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I thought this article might be a tough sell for some, but I am delightfully surprised. It's very uplifting to see more people seeing the relevance of these older groups. The user who nominated it takes things very personally (it's why he is going after these articles) and doesn't care about the topic we cover (he has told me he has no interest in this genre of music). It upsets me, not because I wrote them, but because his disregard for this era of music is troublesome. However, with others like you, these bands and musical acts will continue to remain relevant. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Ghmrytle is on leave so unfortunately he cannot help. CrazyAces, I believe, sent me to AN/I, not entirely sure as it doesn't direct me to anything. Actually it's confirmed, he sent me to AN/I, apparently for asking people to weigh-in on deletion discussions. This needs to stop I just want to work on music articles. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Music Machine
	For being a true representive of a great era of music. Thanks for improving multiple pages related to 60s music, especially the garage rock article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is long overdue, continue the amazing work! TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015

Thank you so much. Your recognition means a lot to me, considering all of the articles that you have created and improved. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the short time we have collaborated together has helped me improve on my editing skills significantly, so part of the credit should go to you. Without you and Ghmyrtle, I don't think I would have been able to contribute as much as I hoped I could. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2015

I should be able to complete my article on Wimple Winch by tomorrow (so excited!) so I should be getting back on track, regarding article creating. I have been so involved in the death of Freddie Gray though, unrelated to music, I realize, that I got a little off task. Hope your plans are going well, I will read any articles you create in the future as they are surely about interesting topics.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

An image or media file has been removed from your user page, user talk page, or other page because it is licensed as non-free. Wikipedia's non-free content policy states:

Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.

As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy and refrain from including non-free images on your user pages. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's non-free content policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of non-free images. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I took it from another Wikipedia site, so I assumed that it was OK. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Article ideas

I have been exceptionally busy on the Freddie Gray case, so, even though the work is fulfilling, I find it difficult to find time to write more articles. I have only been able to write the Wimple Winch article and I think it's a shame some of the draft ideas I found are going unused. If you ever have a slow day, I recommend writing about this band called "The Myddle Class", but any idea on my sandbox is open to you. It would be nice to see more of the bands appear on here and I have 100% faith in you to write an article on one of them if you want to. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I created The Morning Dew page, which I feel fitted well into the list of garage rock bands. It is a shame they went unnoticed outside their region as did many Midwest groups virtually trapped between the music scenes of the east and west.

On a saddened note, I feel I need to express my sorrow for the loss of B. B. King. Such a momentous figure that will be missed, I'm sure you feel the same. Keep up the good work and peace to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Cite overkill

Don't worry. Many editors, including myself, have been guilty of cite overkill. I suggest you find two or three reliable secondary sources that cover the early usage of "punk" in some detail. Most of your refs appear to be handpicked quotes from fairly obscure primary sources. Other editors might find those difficult to verify. It's often better to reference texts that are widely available. The work you're doing is impressive and has opened my eyes to a few things. Keep it up. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate your understanding. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly Lester Bangs. If anyone's an authority on this kind of stuff, it's him. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, once again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am worried you are verging on POV pushing and original research with your reliance on primary sources to show a stronger connection between garage rock and punk. While you are passionate about the subject, we have to reflect the mainstream position. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We can still reflect the mainstream position without submerging the facts--facts are still facts. This does not mean that people who have the prevailing view are wrong. It is perfectly acceptable to believe (as most do) that punk started in 1975, particularly since most people's baseline criteria is that punk must have a scene and a subculture built around the music to be fully manifested--that is fine. Mentioning facts pertaining to the early historical roots of punk does not negate that at all, as long as we take care to go on to explain that, with the advent of the New York and London scenes, a subculture formed that is the now basis of the popular understanding (i.e. when it became a movement), and then go on to explain that, after the mid 70s, the earlier garage and protopunk came to be viewed as predecessors. That is OK. We can still keep the article based on a post-1974 framework, but just supply the background facts, so that the reader can know how punk came to be. Just take the readers and walk them through the history. I am more sympathetic to the post-1974 perspective than some might think. I just do not want to see historical facts get submerged, just because some might think that they are "off-limits." These facts can be included as a part of the narrative (but not necessarily the main thrust of it). The "Garage and British Beat," "Protopunk," and "Etymology" sections are where discussion of the earliest roots of development is most appropriate (provided that any statements made there are properly sourced). And, then there is everything else (the majority of the article) covering post-1974. Keep in mind that I haven't added any statements to the text of article that any good editor would object to--I just included too many references (I realize that new generations of editors are not going to have the time to comb the archives and read conversations that we have had on these talk pages--so I wanted the sources to be there for later generations of editors to see; luckily, we have whittled the sources down to a shorter list of citations from published books: those published books are well-read, reliable and factual). You don't need to worry--I don't want the article change in any fundamental way, other than just to be more informative, accurate, and educational to the reader, which is what we all want. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Dang, these words are so true. I appreciate the work on the article, it was something else I was reading. Also, double thanks for working on the Pleasure Seekers, it was something I haven't gotten to yet. I'm returning to music articles, which is very joyful for me, and I will improve the Count Five article more. Something I wanted to inform you about since they are a quintessential garage rock band. Haven't done much yet, but expect additions soon. Peace, friend.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the words of encouragement, and I am thankful to all three of you, because all of you are helping me to be a better editor.Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GloryRoad66. You have new messages at John from Idegon's talk page.
Message added 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Country Joe and the Fish

I'm not sure about your opinion on the band, but Country Joe and the Fish is one of my favorites of the 60s, and after seeing the article on the group, I was so upset. It misses so much of what they were about, it definitely needs to be my next project. I would appreciate, when I am complete, if you could overlook it so I know if I did a good job or further improvements are needed. I should start editing by tomorrow.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

They were a great band. I'm going to get really busy for the next week, so I'm going to have to go "Wiki lite" for a while. But afterwards, I will have time to go into some of the articles and take a look. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no pressure, I have other things to attend to so it can wait. I was working toward getting the L.A. Woman album to GA status, and need to write an article on a garage rock group called Larry's Rebels. Once you are free, we can tackle the Country Joe and the Fish article together, and fix it up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd make a couple of slight "touch-ups" on the L.A. Woman article. When I have time I will check out some of the other article you have mentioned. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the assist, I have a clear understanding of what I write about, but sometimes I make silly mistakes that, thankfully, you fixed. I have expanded the article tremendously since I first got to it, and still have a long way to go (need to add a "music" and "reception" section). If you could go back to the article once I include those sections, that would be a big help. I'll make sure to mention you when I go to GA with it. :) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. if you have any books on the Doors' music from the album that would also help. I have two, but more would only improve upon detail. The thing is, when the music section is made, it needs to be done all at once, otherwise it doesn't make sense to have, for example, half of the track list. Could you possibly add any info of songs into my sandbox with the citation if you have time? If you don't want to, it's understandable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: You are unintentionally adding to a quote. Please revert to original text.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I did't know that it was a quote--but we could add the word "pictured" (i.e. bearded) to be precise. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a long quote so it's understandable. I will just write here so we don't keep mixing talk pages. I think the reader should understand by the whole quote. Sorry for reverting that, I wasn't trying to be controlling or annoying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I will change ti slightly. See if you like my next edit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to add "pictured" with readers knowing it is not a part of the quote?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we re-organize the way the sentence is worded and structured. We can paraphrase the exact same idea, but using slightly different words--and of course show the citation for the source. Perhaps we could say "photographed." Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend removing the quote for paraphrasing, but it is possible to include a word or two as long as this: (your word here) is used.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that the language is precise, and clear to the reader. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I will try something. If I am wrong than you can fix it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the quote is now being misused, one cannot interrupt the quote without mentioning a return to it. May I try an idea and see if you like it?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Made the change, what I did should specify what you wanted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like it. We need to put a begin-quotation mark somewhere in the next sentence (or in this one), because the next sentence ends with a quotation mark. I assume there is a quote going on. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, just do what you intended and I will understand. If you think it needs more quotations than that is false, as long as it is in the beginning and end of cited material, it's ok.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Let us discuss the wording a little later. I plan to add the modern reception in the next day or two, and its possible tweaking should be at the top of the list of issues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That'll be great. I have finally ordered a laptop, so for the first time in a long while, I will be able to be more helpful. I want to look at some of the articles you mentioned, such as Country Joe, etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be good, it needs a more detailed history and references. I'm divided between going back to the Chocolate Watchband article or Country Joe, or write another article. Seems like there is so much to be done.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I included a "Modern reception" section and am open to additions. However, I suggest discussing here first because depending on whether it is an online review of book source, we may need to split the paragraph (one for reviews online, one for book descriptions). All that is left is a "Music" and "Contemporary reception" than I think we are finished with the article. Both of them should be finished in one swoop (for reasons already mentioned), but I need to gather a lot more sources first from books.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Great addition. It may be best to call the section "Critical reception," rather than "Modern reception," because some of the quotes form reviews are not recent (the one by Robert Christgau looks as if it was done when the album was released). In light of the fact that the LA Woman album is almost universally regarded as one of the Doors very best (and a bona-fide classic), it may be best not to start the section with the Allmusic review calling it "uneven"--we could move the Allmusic review down a few sentences and put some of the more glowing reviews first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually if I'm not mistaken, the Christgau review was written in 2005 as a part of the Consumer Guide series. If not, I will need a new review from somewhere else as I want the title to stay "Modern reception" for when I make "Contemporary reception". The Allmusic review, I thought, should go first since Richie Unterberger is highly respected in his reviews and was more positive than negative in retrospect. It is difficult to find reviews from reliable sources or critics so if you have a book that perhaps has some modern (or more helpful contemporary) reception than that would be great. I plan to go back to the article when I get the books I need to finish it off.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Christgau review is probably reprinted from an older source (in all likelihood form the original review--the way he describes the bass player gives that away), but the time period of review should not matter that much, since reception sections of well-known albums are customarily not time-specific on Wiki.

• Generally, the Wiki standard for reception sections of well-known albums is to name the sections "Reception" or "Critical Reception" (not indicating past or present) and to designate them as major sections within the articles, not subsections, as we have done here--we may need to hem closer to Wiki norms.
• All well-known albums are supposed to have a box showing star ratings from major magazine and guides. So, we need to re-instate the box with the star reviews--obviously they must be accurately reported--they are absolutely de rigeur (for big-name albums). In order to accommodate the insertion of the star-box, we could move the Robbie Krieger quote box up to the preceding section.

In the Allmusic review, Unterberger goes on and on with glowing positives about the album, until the very end of the review when he says "uneven." so we could change the wording to put more emphasis on the positive aspects of his appraisal. This is an album that obviously we love, but more importantly is universally loved. The star-box (reinstated) would reflect that near universal assessment.

By the way, if I sound "nit-picky," don't take that in a bad way, because I am so grateful for the tireless work you have done for these articles. I want to help you achieve the perfection that you are aiming for in in all you have worked so hard for. I am sorry that I have not been able to do as much as I should, by I have been hampered with my job responsibilities and lack of my own computer. Luckily, I am using my brand new laptop for the fist time as I write this message, so I will be able to do so many more wonderful things for Wiki. I just think it is great that there are a few enthusiastic and dedicated people to write about the music from this wonderful era. I truly rejoice in your contributions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, I'd rather have someone tell me how to improve rather than just go along. I kinda didn't follow whatever guideline there is for albums, but more so from the articles on The Byrds albums (which are all GA). In it, the user did not use an star-box and almost always had a modern and contemporary reaction, both as subsections. I really trust and follow his way of writing so it may not seem conventional, but it worked well for him. As of now though, I will change the reaction to critical reaction.

P.S. I plan to finish an article I started before going back to editing the album. It is about a song by The Barbarians called "Moulty". It is interesting, it is about the drummer, Victor "Moulty" Moulton, and his precarious situation with living with a metallic claw for a hand. It should pass notability since it charted nationally and the story is intriguing. Afterwards, I may edit songs, but I more than likely will go back to the album.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to put the star box back in. I am probably the craziest renegade (as you well know), but I try to suppress that part of me when I am editing an article. I'll express my "differentness" on talk pages, yes, but when editing an article, my responsibility is to only do what is best for the article, keeping myself out of it. I don't own any of these articles--they are not mine--they belong to Wikipedia. We are only here to do our humble parts, like craftsmen on a medieval cathedral. However much you may want to be different, you have to put the interests of the article first. Is shadowing the style of another editor (@ the Byrds' article) going to make you any more unique--think about that for a minute? Particularly when it means removing a good thing that was once in the article, put there by knowlegable and conscientious editors? None of us have the right to take that away. We need to put it back. If we want other editors to show us respect, then we have to give them the respect, too. Don't be so obsessed with G.A. that you forget to just do what is best for the article. The Byrds article is rated G.A. because it is well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, and accurate--that does not mean it could not be improved in little ways (all articles are forever in need of improvement, even if minor--and every article has different needs and contexts). Also, G.A. only means good, not great. Why aim to merely pass with a C, when you can get an A+? Please understand that I mean well in what I say--I am speaking as an ally giving my best advice.

On a lighter note... I'm guessing you've played the song by the song, "Moulty" on your copy of Nuggets and are probably already aware of the involvement of members of the group later known as the Band (Robbie Robertson & co.), who played some of the instruments on the track, and contributed to the backing vocals. There is so much great trivia when you get into 60s garage! It is great watching that old film of the Barbarians playing on the T.A.M.I. show--with Moulty playing the drums with his prosthetic hand--what joy he exuded (that is exactly the quality that music has lost). I believe that the lead singer for the Cryin' Shames, too, had a hook for a missing hand. On stage and in group pictures, he would wear a pirate hook! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I will put it back at some point. I actually heard "Moulty" on the rerelease of The Barbarians debut album, though I do own the Nuggets album too. I wonder why The Barbarians were on the T.A.M.I. Show? I'm not saying they weren't any good (I thought it was the best part of the show), but at that point they only existed for four months. Compare this to the other musical artists like The Rolling Stones, Lesley Gore, and The Supremes, it just seems unusual to give such a new group that kind of exposure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a good point. They weren't well-known and came all the way from Massachusetts to play in L.A. I guess that in the 60s, concert promoters and radio stations were more open to new talent and less constricted by pre-set programming set by corporate conglomerates. DJ's could just play cool stuff, if they thought people would listen to it, and people did. Local and regional hits were a common thing, even if they didn't break the national charts. A small local band, even high school aged, could go straight into the studio, cut a record and have it played on the local hit AM radio station the very next day! Today such bands would have a hard time even being played on a college radio station. It was all so extemporaneous and unpretentious. It all seems so unbelievable today. I sit here almost in tears as I write this and try to imagine what it must have been like. When I hear these songs it is like a magic beacon--there is despondency (yes!), but at the same time a joyfulness (and even a goodness)--a spirit of generosity coming from a time when people had communities, had a heart, and cared. Where did it all go? We need that magic so badly today, but now people are just jaded. But, I guess that it is gone forever, gone, gone...never again to return. But, I hope that we can get another renaissance in our lifetimes. Never give up hope! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it was no disrespect to the band, but when comparing them to the other artists there, The Barbarians seemed a little random to be performing so soon into their existence. As for music today, I don't see it returning anytime soon. Everything is too comercialized, too much about money, and drenched in technology that there almost is no need for an actual person to perform. What is even more sad is listeners are so used to this "music" that they disregard those from the past that actually cared about making original and emotional songs. Indie rock bands sometimes show a glimpse of the old way, but they mostly give in to the mainstream standard when they have the chance to make it rich.

On a lighter note, I created the "Moulty" page, and it was seen as relevant, as expected. Not sure where to go to next, but there is a lot of work to be done. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep it up!!! I'm so glad there are a few people that agree with me about this. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope everything has been going well. I am intrigued with all the Spanish garage rock bands you are editing on, I wasn't aware there were that many. The only two I extensively gotten into are Los Bravos and Los Speakers.

Unfortunately my work was impeded today by an IP-hopper who is determined to harass me, for weeks on end. All my pages have (again, for like the third time) been protected and the person said "I have set the date on my calendar" for when the protection ends. I think it's rather childish, he gives me vulgar threats, even when I ask him to leave me to my work (I'm not sure what I did). But, alas, he just quoted me and gave me a big NO, so on June 20th I should expect more sad threats. I told him to get a hobby, but I guess this is his hobby. Anyways, I got some work done and I hope I'm glad to see those Spanish band articles are being improved!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is sad that such a thoughtful, kind, and conscientious editor as you, who is trying to do so much to make Wiki (and the world) a better place, is having to contend with a small-minded vandal. It is sad that there are certain people with negative agendas, who, rather than try to improve Wikipedia, just tear people down. It is a shame. Be sure to let the administrators know, so they can put a permanent block on this individual.

By the way, thanks for the encouragement about the Spanish articles. Some of them need a lot of help (understatement!) I'm trying to find some decent sources. Good luck on your articles. And I am confident I'm sure that terrible vandal will be blocked out (permanently) real soon! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the vandal is hopping IPs, so no matter how many times he is blocked, he will come back. I guess I'll just have to live with it. As for the articles, I think it is harder to find sources, so people don't write that much on them. I don't mean it as an excuse because the bands are important and need a thorough history. I may work on the Los Bravos article later, but I need more background and refs first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to put up with that vandal's games. Let the administrators know, and they might be able to put a permanent restricted accesses on all the articles you are working on (as well as your personal pages). That way, you can have the peace of mind to concentrate on the work that you love to do. I am happy to see that there are people dedicated to writing about these wonderful bands and artists, whose stories so badly need to be told. It's hard enough dealing with the challenge of finding good sources. But, to have to worry about some pea-brained vandal interfering--that is unacceptable. That sick individual is not so much hurting you as the memory of the musical artists you are trying to chronicle. It is shameful. But don't let it get you down. Keep up the good fight! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The admins can only place limited protection for a certain amount of time, so June 20 I will have to expect the person to attack again. I won't communicate with anyone that day, since the vandal would go after them too. Anyways, when that wasn't happening, I finished work on "Paint It Black" and "Lady Jane". I should work on "Black Is Black" when I finish work on another article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have to suffer at the hands of such a squirmy little low-life. Maybe, you could get the administrators to put another temporary restricted access into effect, which could protect you for at least a certain amount of (more) time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's quite alright, as long as the issue is contained. I don't have to worry until June 20th, even then I don't really care. The person is a total loser and needs a hobby. Let us just go back to focusing on our projects, I'll call on you for help and revision once I finish my latest project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Music and other concerns

Tomorrow I plan to finish off my article on Sean Bonniwell's album Close. I'm sure you have heard of him from The Music Machine, so this album, you will find, is a total suprise when you consider the artist. By the way, the article about the band Fever Tree needs a lot of help, just saying in case you are interested. My "concern" I have referenced is about the user NegroLeagueHistorian. Through conversations with other users, they believe this is CrazyAces489 on a different account (it's not sock puppetry though). I'm not making any accusations or saying anything negative, but I wanted you to be aware in case past issues arise again, such as baseless deletion attempts. Those situations require your opinion, but I cannot directly ask you, since I will more than likely be accused of canvassing, even though you, more than most people, are knowledgeable in our field of interest. Perhaps occasionally checkup on them, but as of now they are keeping to themselves, so hopefully it stays that way. Thanks, as always.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I love Sean Bonniwell's stuff with the Music Machine, but I didn't know he had a solo album. I'll definitely have to give it a listen. As for the unfortunate situation involving that editor/editors(?) you just described, I'll make it my regular business to keep an eye out for articles nominated for deletion. That way it won't put you in the position of having to ask. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want it to distract from what you want to do, so don't feel obligated. As long as they keep to themselves there shouldn't be any reason to worry about them anymore, but I thought it would be better to be cautious than go through that fiasco again. By the way, that solo album is a complete opposite from his Music Machine material, so you may like it but be prepared for a different side of Bonniwell.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll like the album a lot, even if it is different. And I'll keep my eyes on those nominate for delete discussion pages. I will keep an eye on the Wiki Rock and Albums project pages, and if there are any others, just let me know, and I'll keep a daily eye on those too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on a massive expansion of the Garage Rock article (you can see it in the tabbed sandbox on my user page). After I get the text written and add all of the citiations, I will get everyone to provide their feedback. As I know you would understand (and I know that you feel this way too), I am asking people not to edit it while it is in my sandbox, but to provide comments. Right now it is very rough, so it is not yet ready to be properly evaluated in any meaningful way. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I completely understand, that is why it is your sandbox, not anyone else's. The Freakbeat article could also be expanded and I think that is right up your alley. I can honestly say your work on garage rock is your best work here, though I enjoy your several articles on bands as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to concentrate more on the other articles when I finish the Garage article, but gosh, this thing is a really big load (whew!), so it is going to tie me up for a while. But, after that, I will have free hands to move in other directions particularly in the more specific-topic articles, which I would like to do more of. By the way, did you get to see the Sons of Adam article? I think you will really like it. When I finish the G.R. article I will go there and consolidate the citations as you had recommended I do. I just never took the time try the better way to cite (although I have to make the terrible confession that was aware of it all along, but sluffed it off--I was just too focused on the writing part to want take the time). But, I'm doing it correctly now. I can also use that little shortcut thing on the on the toolbar at the top of the edit page that says "cite," which makes it really easy--it brings up a menu where you just load the source info., then it sets it up in the proper way. So, I can just focus on the writing, which is what I love to do. I guess that we are scribes for Wikipedia--that is our calling. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a little tidbit (please don't get mad): I was wondering if we could ever so slightly change the heading of The Cherry Slush to make a bold reference for The Bells of Rhymny', instead of The Wayfarers. The Wayfarers was the first name, yes, but the the Bells of Rhymny is more prominent and necessary information, in light of the fact that they recorded songs under that name which appear on compilations, some of which I own, and for that reason are of more interest to collectors and enthusiasts. Whereas, there were better known bands called the Wayfarers (you already know one of them!!!), so putting that name in the spotlight actually might confuse people (rather than successfully inform). Usually, if there was a first name for a band, but they did not record under it or establish any notability (or notoriety) with it, I tend not put it in bold or emphasize it, unless there is a good reason to do so (i.e if there is an important anecdote associated with it or a well known member of another group who was with them previously when under that name, etc.). I try to spotlight what would be of most interest to the reader's needs. If I edit it, I hope you won't be mad, because I know how proud you are of that article--and I like the article a lot. You are welcome to revert my edit, if you don't approve, but I think that you will like it a lot. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit, but you are welcome to revert it if you wish. But, I think that you will really like it.Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you, but I am fine with the change. The Cherry Slush article was one of my first ones I have written, so I am sure there is possibly some minor errors still there that I missed. I was suprised no one had created an article on such a great band!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you created that article--and it is really good! By the way, you've touched up and corrected some of my little "snafus" before (you know how I sometimes have a tendency rush things). No one is perfect--you've seen me in action! But then, I've even tidied up or slightly re-worded a few little things after Master editors, just as they have done (or you have done) for me. It's a process. It's all about the perfection that we work so hard for and strive to achieve in our articles, to make them the best they can be Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

True, though I feel we are both improving to a point where, hopefully, we avoid some mistakes. I know some grammatical errors are unavoidable when I start typing and don't find the mistakes when I re-read. I will discuss in detail about the G.R. article when you are finished, but one small thing is the "Are You a Boy or Are You a Girl" song can be wikilinked. Other minor corrections (there are actually very little) can be addressed later when it is added to the article. I would strongly urge you to nominate it for GA status when you are finished, I genuinely believe it can pass.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I will definitely take a look at it. I know that if you think that it is good enough to be GA, then it must be really good. I could look it over, and if you don't mind, I could see if it needs a few little tweaks here and there...only to help make sure that it has the best possible chance of getting GA...and you can always revert any changes you don't think are beneficial. However, if I do any small edits, would I still be allowed to be a reviewer? Let me know if it would be considered a conflict of interest, and, then, I would only do a review (and not do any edits) if that is the case. Be sure to let me know.

By the way, I hope that you will like the Garage article when it gets done. When I get finished (it is going to take probably about a week), I will ask everyone to give their feedback, and I want you to be included. Some things may have to be trimmed out. Others may have to be modified, etc. I'm expecting that. There may be certain things that are controversial, but I hope not--there shouldn't be any reason. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so there wasn't any confusion, I meant you should nominate the Garage rock article for GA when you finish editing it. Perhaps someone like Ghmyrtle could review it when the time comes if you do nominate it for GA. Before then, I will be sure to help in any feedback you want, but, to me, this is your project. Everyone else is really just tagging along to help you achieve what you expect out of it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That was so kind of you. I appreciate that you think highly enough of my work--to recommended that I seek nomination on the Garage article. I should do that. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just wondering, (and this may sound crazy) do you think it might even have a chance of possibly achieving A or FA, if I tidy it up and make it look real good? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not real sure to be honest. I haven't look at the criteria too much for FA or A, but other users who have been here longer may have some idea of how close you are to achieving that standard. All I know is it takes a lot to reach FA or A, so don't be disappointed if another user says it hasn't reached that yet. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that would unlikely, but GA would be really good, and that could direct more people to the article who want to learn about this wonderful era of music. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I made a couple of very minor edits at top of The Music Machine. I put "tuned" in place of "toned." I changed "one hit wonder" to "sole hit" (but kept the link to "one hit wonder"). I tweaked the sentence about protopunk, since proptopunk is not an actual genre per se (except maybe in Stooges era '69-'74), but rather a punk thread that runs through several genres which pre-date 70s punk: mid-60s garage, Detriot, glam, etc. I hope you don't mind. I think that you will like the changes. By the way I really like the article a lot. Fantastic article! Just some minor little tweaks to help achieve the high standard of perfection that you are aiming for in the article. I know you would settle for no less. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It was fine by me. The article is one of the projects I need to go back to, since it was one of my first I worked on. I find the earlier articles I started editing, I was a little too worried about upsetting someone for expanding (and occasionally removing) material from articles, but now I see it doesn't do any good to worry when it means the article does not get the content it deserves. I rewrote the first two body paragraphs a week or so ago and, after finishing some other projects, I should get to the rest of it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's cool. Really, the only reason you've seen me correcting more things than usual, is that I'm clicking into a lot of blue links while I write the expansion to the Garage article, so I'm just editing a lot of things. And keep in mind, if I edit a thing of yours here or there, that does not mean I think any less of you as en editor for it. Nothing under the sun in could make me think any less. I could only have the highest regards. I have always considered you an equal as an editor. I just think it is so wonderful what you are doing. I have really enjoyed all of the articles you've worked on. My favorites are "Norwigian Wood" and "Moultly." I think those two are your very best--you really have a knack for writing about songs (which is something I haven't really focused on--maybe I should try it, but, that probably would not be my forte). I do not think I could have done those two as well (and I don't think anyone could've). I mean that. When I fist started at Wiki, I felt like an orphan, because there was no one who shared my passion for obsure artists from this particular era of music. But, since you've arrived, you've been like a brother in so many ways and I thank you. I feel like we have shared a vision for expanding consciousness about this music. I'm sorry that I had to take a long sabbatical from Wiki, but under the circumstances I didn't really have a choice--I had to deal with a death of my father, which kind of made it hard to focus for anything else for a long time. Then, came the computer and wifi issues. The good news is that you were able to step in and contribute, and that gives me the comfort of knowing that if for whatever reason I get sidelined again, you will be there to keep the cause alive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I found a user like you too. To be honest, when I first started editing, I was arrogant and thought I didn't need anyone's help here. I'm glad Ghmytle was patient with me, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to help all the articles I have been editing. Then I meet you and it's even more fun to write about the music when there is someone to discuss it with. There is not many people my age that I can go up to and talk about The Electric Prunes, Unrelated Segments, or some band like that, without them giving me a confused face. Hopefully, we are making people more aware of the music, even if it is just one individual, because then the history stays alive for others to enjoy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you plan on editing songs (it's fun, trust me) I recommend writing an article or two about some before doing so. I know that strategy seems backwards from what others say when editing on a subject, but that is what I did, and when I rarely do edit a song, I personally think it is my best work (I still need to complete "Norwegian Wood"'s reception though). Like when I wrote both of the Barbarians' charting singles, it taught me a lot on how to format, especially when other editors revised it in someway or another.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Gosh I must have driven Ghmyrtle nuts when I got here (I am so thankful for his patience with me--I think he really tries to support new editors and protect articles covering obscure topics). I hope I've "mellowed" out--at least just a little bit. Even though I am somewhat of a "retroist" and wary of technology (and afraid that Huxley or Orwell's nightmare might come true), the great thing about having the internet is that you have access to so many of the great musical artists of the right past at your finger tips. So if technology can do one thing right it can do that. So, the work we're doing on Wikipedia will make it possible for new folks to discover this wonderful music. By the way, when I finish the expansion on the Garage article, I will have more time to do other stuff, so I might try writing about some songs as you recommended--your words give me confidence to tackle something that I might have otherwise been hesitant to try. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments - I appreciate it. You two are doing fine work here, both individually and collaboratively, and if I sometimes seem to come down hard on either of you it's only because I care about the music too, and recording its history accurately. If you do need any advice - and both of you seem to be managing perfectly fine anyway - I'll be happy to do what I can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what songs you could write about, it isn't as easy to find a suggestion as an album or band is. I wrote about songs that meant something to me and I couldn't believe had not been created yet (ex. "Talk Talk", or "Moulty"). I know "People In Me" hasn't been done yet, "I (Who Have Nothing" does have a page, but doesn't have a credible section for Terry Knight and the Pack. This is just off the top of my head, I'll think of more later.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Man, I'm really diggin' what you are sayin' about what the songs have meant to you! And that is what made those articles so great--that you related to the songs on an emotional level--that comes through (and in a good way--not biased, but through connecting to the inner meaning and the vibe). That is so incredible. So, come the time when I write an article about a song (after I finish this G.R. expansion, which is beginning to feel like building a never-ending airport...whew!), I will definitely try to find a song that I relate to emotionally--although I relate to so many of them emotionally, I'd have to throw a dart. I guess I could pick one that means a lot to me on a personal level, but where there is also a lot of stuff written about it. But, I don't think it would be as good as the two you wrote (what ever could be?)--I'll just try to make it the best it can be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the songs I feel a connection to come from Janis Joplin. She is the one person I wish I could have talked with as regular people, disregard the fame, and be friends. She was a unique woman and, more importantly, she was real, which is so hard to find now. I feel like if she had someone who loved her half as much as she loved everyone else, she would still be here. I still think of Janis fondly, I cherish the person she was, and hope she is at peace now. Sorry for the little emotional rant, but this kinda went beyond the music for a second. I'll get back to you on a list of songs you could write about, if that would help you at all.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I like that you have sincerity and real feelings and that you're not made out of cardboard. Keep up the faith! You can't help but get emotional when discussing the likes of such a great artist as Janis Joplin. There will never be another Janis Joplin. I think her untimely death was a real blow to music and to people's collective spirit. If she could have lived longer, the 70s might have turned out differently. I would have loved to have met her and shared a good swig of Southern Comfort, and had a good chat. I agree! She was someone that I'd would want to get to know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

She was real embodiment of the hippie dream. Not a lot of people realize Janis was an avid reader, painter, traveler (beyond touring), and just a true intellectual. Janis was much more beyond the music, but a lot of that was shrouded in the persona others created for her. I feel no one, other than those who knew her best, will ever know the real Janis, though I try to look into that side of her. I just hope that she is happy now, though I wish she could have found content in her lifetime.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You can hear all of those extracurricular (or should I say essential) interests come through in her music. She was a true renaissance individual--the kind we need so much today. A lot of the core people involved in the San Francisco scene came out of the beatnik movement and probably knew Ginsburg, Ferlinghetti, and so many of the great beat writers, poets, and artists. Then, I guess people in New York, too, had a connection--people who had been in the whole Greenwich Village scene, like Dylan, Richie Havens, etc. Janis was somehow a part of that whole world. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this Texas psychedelic and garage rock band called Neal Ford and the Fanatics that I plan to write about shortly. Interesting music they made, and I thought the 13th Floor Elevators were the only developers of psychedelic rock in that region. Turns out, these guys were around just as long and created their own unusual take on the style.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I love their song, "Shame on You" (I have it on Garaqgebeat66 Vol. 1 and Best on Pebbles Vol. 2). I wonder, are they playing a saw for the solo in that song--sounds interesting, that high-pitched sound? I believe that they have an album, too--I'd like to get that. There are so many albums I'd like to get. I would definitely like to hear more of their songs. I want to make mention of them in the general G.R. article, so having an article to blue link to them would be great. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Same there are countless vinyls I want to find. My prize of my collection, to me, is either the (Turn On) The Music Machine or 96 Tears, though it is hard to tell. Through my research, I did see Neal Ford and the Fanatics did record an album in 1967. I should finish the article within a day or two, so you should get a blue link shortly. If you wanted to hear more from them, they have a compilation album from 2013 called Good Men. I have it and think it's worth a try.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Texas definitely had its share of psychedelia, even early on. Sadly right now I do not have a turntable, so I have to collect in digital formats (which of course is heresy). I like to have a hard copy when I can, so though while files and streams are nice, I try to get my hands on CD's when possible. About a year ago, I found some original 45's by a few 60s bands selling for a cheap price--I hope their value goes up, but unfortunately I don't have equipment to play them right now. I think that it is great to see vinyl and turntables coming back. I hope to eventually get a turntable--I want to save up and buy a really good quality player one of these days. If I'm gonna spend the money, I might as well do it right and go all out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually have two turntables and trust me it's worth the money when you save up. I have a sizable collection of vinyl, and it is such a great hobby since there is literally millions of records to look for. CDs have some positives since a lot of the rereleases have additional tracks from outtakes, demos and such, that, if anything, are interesting in a historical view. Unfortunately, I do not think Neal Ford and the Fanatics' LP is available on CD yet. It is confusing when you consider they were arguably the most recognized band in Houston during their existence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I had somewhere read they were the biggest band in Houston. I imagine you have a great collection--that old Los Speakers LP must be rare--I'm assuming it is the original. Perhaps you could get your hands on that Beatles' Yesterday & Today with the butcher sleeve...that would be a real find! I'd love to get a turntable--they sound so much better than CD's. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Los Speakers album was En El Maravilloso Mundo De Ingeson, and is still in its original wrapping. It is probably my most expensive LP. I usually get one LP to play and one to keep in its wrapping. Except this one is so rare, I haven't found another copy. The Beatles album you mentioned I imagine can easily fetch hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars. There is still a lot I have on my first "want" list that I haven't found, like The Deep's Psychedelic Moods or Count Five's Psychotic Reaction. I say first list because I have at least 20 of them organized. When I walk across the country next summer (I'm really planning to do it!) I plan to go to San Francisco, where Amoeba Records is located, which has one of the largest record collections in the world.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Fining a good copy of the butcher cover would probably be almost as difficult as walking across the country. I hope you have a great walking "expedition" next summer--I'm sure there will be TV cameras to cover the event. Be sure to let the media know! I had a friend who rode his bike trans-America, but walking...well Forrest Gump did it, so more power to you. Definitely, go for it! I thought I was crazy! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, it is more of a life journey than it is a publicity stunt. Anyways, I'm nearly complete that article so that link can be added soon. It is always good to have articles for those bands you include in the G. R. article, it just seems more professional to me. By the way, I finished extensive editing on the Electric Prunes a while back and submitted it for GA review, but no one has claimed it yet. If you wanted, maybe you could try to review it? I don't know the whole process, so you may need to investigate, but a sub-page to begin the review is on Talk:The Electric Prunes page. No pressure, I just trust your review and I think you can do it since you didn't substantially edit the page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It will be a wonderful life journey and I'm so excited for you! And, your life journey can inspire others. So, do find a way to let the media know, not as a stunt, but just to be there to let people know about your incredible journey--which I think people need to know--the world needs an intelligent, yet kind-hearted renegade to save us from destruction! The future of the planet depends on you! On more mundane matters...I would be happy to do a review, but I'm kinda new with the reviewing process. Is there an official review page where I give the review, in a forum where it can be properly aired? Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes at the Talk:The Electric Prunes page you will notice the "About this page" note on the top of the page. In the list it brings up, at the very bottom it will ask if you want to review the article with a link to create a review subpage. This might look a little different for you because I work on my iPhone, not a laptop.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Several proposed changes:

• Before I do the review, could we just change one little thing in the heading, where it reads "...Much of the band's music was possessed of an eerie and sometimes anguished ambiance..."(?) That sounds a little bit subjective or amorphous (even though I am aware that it is sourced and that is the way: "Richie Unterberger described it). Perhaps we can change it to read this way: "Richie Unterberger has described their highly idiosyncratic sound as being "possessed of an eerie and sometimes anguished ambiance"... I don't have the liner notes at my disposal, but perhaps you could make a quote or specific reference to Unterberger, to alleviate any sense of subjectivity or haziness.
• Also, the language about the songwriters needs to be a bit more straightforward and clear. Also the thing about electronic rock may be premature (I don't know)--it depends whether or not they worked with synthesizers (let me go check and see).
• The part at the beginning of the history section that reads" "The band originated from a developing garage rock group" would sound better as "The group began as a basic garage band and then developed..."

After those things I can do the review. Keep in mind that I have to be honest in a review (my credibility is on the line--if do a "whitewash," no one will ever believe me again). But, if I have a negative criticism, I'll let you know beforehand---that way to give you a chance to make the changes in advance. Those are things that need to be modified. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the change referring to Unterberger. I am going to stay on the electronic rock side though. Me and Ghmyrtle talked about it while I rewrote the opening and he liked that change. And I understand that you need to be strict in your review, which is what I expect from someone who cares this much about music. I'd rather have it that way, instead of jeopardizing the integrity of the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, one question is did they use synthesizers? That is make or break as far as electronic music is concerned.

Here is a prototype:

The Electric Prunes are an American psychedelic rock band, formed in Los Angeles, California, in 1965. Much of the band's highly idiosyncratic sound was characterized by what Richie Uterberger has called "an eerie and sometimes anguished ambiance," Much of the bands's material was supplied by songwriters Annette Tucker and Nancie Mantz, though the group also penned their own songs. The band's psychedelic sound was marked by innovative recording techniques with fuzz-toned guitars and oscillating sound effects, that would have influence on later genres such as electronic rock. In addition, guitarist Ken Williams' and singer James Lowe's concept of "free-form garage music" provided the band with a richer sonic palette and exploratory lyrical structure than many of their contemporaries.

===Origins===

The band originated as surf-influenced garage rock group, the Sanctions, in 1965... Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Unterberger never said synthesizers but he did describe them as an electronic rock band, and noted their distorted electronic sound effects, so I would still describe them as such.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the change to the beginning of the origin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There is not one single source or writer that I deem to be infallible. Reliable sources are only reliable, not infallible. My main concern is accuracy and truth above all else. The sources only exist to get me as close to the truth as possible (however impossible to it might be), and to serve as verifications once I make a statement, so that people will believe me. I keep a critical eye about everything I read. As editors we have to use discernment. Think of the sources as roadmaps, but sometimes roadmaps have mistakes or are outdated. You have to find your way to reach the destination, and there is really only one person who can do it right. For instance, when I did the Sons of Adam article, the best and most iformative source I used said that they released a record on Almo in 1967. I was wary of that claim, but temporarily put it in. But, then after thinking about it and looking at other sources, I came to the conclusion that it was wrong--the best and most wonderful and informative source. But, a little voice inside of me said it was mistaken. So I took out the thing about the record in 1967--they were broken up by that time--there was no single released at that time. You as a highly intelligent person are the doctor using a scalpel in the surgery. Make sure that the operation is done accurately. The book you had in medical school may not suffice for a particular patient. There is an intuitive voice that leads you to the truth. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but Unterberger, as you know, is very reliable. If he describes them as electronic rock, than that is what the band was. Sure they are not as innovative in the genre as The United States of America or Fifty Foot Hose, but they still incorporated it. I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you, but this is my stance on the concern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

He is has unique opinion on that matter, which I respect, but I would not take him to literally on that count. Unless someone showed me that they used a sytnthesizer (i.e. a Moog), then I would change my mind. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

But even Ghmyrtle was satisfied with the opening. All the sources on their first two albums describe them as electronic rock or their incorporation of its electronic sounds. I cannot ignore the consistency. A compilation album I have called Here Comes the Electric Prunes actually does refer to the use of synthesizers on Underground, if that sways you to keep the content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles used a lot of effects, but they are usually not classified as "electronic rock"--at least not in the formal sense (thought they did use a Moog sparingly on Abbey Road). But, keep in mind that the skeptical reader (rightly or wrongly) may ask questions about the credibility of the article, they my distrust what we are saying (even if we are right), based on a statement they are going to find hard to believe which is positioned right up there in the heading (the heading is where you make the first impression--if you say things the wrong way there, you loose the reader's trust before they proceed with the article). You do say there are corroborating sources, and that is a good thing. I would cite three sources next to that statement and go into umpteenth explanative detail after each citation, even putting page #'s, quote, explanations, etc. in the citations (as you have seen me do on a few occasions, where knew that readers would be skeptical). I would also find sources to make statements in main text parts of the article saying that they used synthesizers (i.e. Moog) or (or at least something akin like a Theremin). If you have that explained and sourced in the article, then the statement in the opening will be believable in the reader's eyes. I am open to what you insist, and may be willing to go along with it. Just be sure to build your edifice on solid ground, because the only people tougher than me will be the readers. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If it meets scrutiny, I will change it. But thus far I have only been met with a positive response from three experienced users I asked to review the article. I wouldn't just blatantly dive into GA if I wasn't sure the content was solid, which is what I was assured from the past responses. As of now, I think it is prepared for the reviewing process, if you wish to initiate it. I can suggest it to someone else if you are too busy with the G. R. article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am more open to your position than you may think--you made the point that there are corroborating sources. Please don't take me to be closed about it. Just be sure put two or three really detailed citations next to the statement in the heading, and then mention the idea (sourced) somewhere else in the article--maybe you could include a quote from one of the writers of the articles in the body of the article. And, then I would be much more inclined to go along. I don't want to be negative or hurtful. I hope you understand that I only want the best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand. But the reviewing process doesn't need to stop before it began based on this one disagreement. There are other aspects you can review on the subpage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad to do a review of practically any article you've ever worked on and be the happiest person alive to do it. That is not to say that I can't be critical here and there (as I would of any article)--If I am critical of reliable sources than I'm going to be critical about small things in a Wiki article, trust me. However, if I ever have any small criticism, I'll always let you know in advance--I owe you the decency of doing so. You have been such a good friend and I thank you--I don't take that for granted. By, the way I like the Electric Prunes article a lot. My only small criticism is that the statement about electronic music just needs a few more qualifiers (the things I mentioned above) and probably should have some sourced statements embedded in the main-text parts of article. You don't necessarily need to take the statement out, but just put the qualifiers in. By the way, there are certain other articles you've done that I would be ready to give a perfect review in a heartbeat--right this second, and I am inches away from being able to give the Prunes article a really good review. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I want so much to send in a review on the Prunes article right away--I have so many good things to say about the article. Could we just get a source listed next to the electronic rock statement and my only remaining criticism will be alleviated. It wouldn't involve any compromise on your part. I don't want to be in the position of having to say anything critical in a negative way, but don't take that to mean I don't want to do the review. I want to do this. Please help me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok I added another ref which makes the statement have three supports to it. Is this enough to start the review?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume the that those three come after the sentence with the wording, "free-form garage music..." You might want go to attach those citations to the previous sentence, too, because it not clear that the electronic rock is also being referenced. I take it to mean that the three citations are not only discussing "free-form garage," but also electronic rock. Assuming that this is the case, I will be ready to do the review recommending G.A. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I reevaluated the sources and saw that they refer to both statements, so I thought they should remain where they were. In that case, I believe the GA review can begin at your ready.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I reference sentence-specifically, but that is just me. Ready to go!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help, and don't worry I'm not mad that you are just being careful. There is no time limit to a review so take it at your own pace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Another fellow user gave me examples of how she did a GA. Here is the link Talk:Sybil Plumlee/GA1, hopefully that will help you if there was anything I didn't explain.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already done the review and recommended it for G.A. I did not use a grid, but wrote it out in paragraph form. If you think I should go back and add the grid, let me know (if it is OK for me to go back and re-edit the review--or would paragraph form do fine?). Go read the review! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem in the format and I appreciate the review. But see this: Wikipedia:Good article nominations and go to instructions. Not only do you review but your ultimately the decider. There should be some templates for you to replace to add. It is in the review section of instructions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to impose the grid, but I could not adequately tailor it to my own intended comments, so removed it. I am just going to leave the review written in prose. I am not Wiki-techie or obsessed with "WP: this" and "WP: that." I'm sorry that I am so naive to the ways of Wiki. I am just a writer who likes to write about music (usually made by people who were naïve about music, but just loved to make music). I think that my written word should be good enough as it stands. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you are fine my friend. I wasn't criticizing the review, but for it to offically mean anything, you need to add a template saying that you "pass" or "fail" the article. In the instructions, there is a template (not a long grid) and it will tell you what to do within the step. Sorry I wasn't entirely clear.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll go in there and do it right. I want the Prunes' article to achieve the G.A. you have striven for and worked so hard for. This is the first time I've done a review, so please bear with me. I probably need to actually start reading WP guidelines and stuff (which I have almost completely ignored until recently) and tending more to the reviewing process, and the whole Wiki peer thing, etc. I've just been reluctant to get into all of that--I am painfully aware that writing about 60s garage bands is not going to get a lot of kudos at Wiki, and there will be skeptics and detractors who want to deny the value of including a lot of these bands, so I just tend to like to fly under the radar. Maybe down the road, when I feel that the obscure 60s bands are more adequately represented, I might switch my focus to other more "respectable" things, but for now there is too much a need here (even if a lot of the people at Wiki projects don't consider it a priority). My hunch is that the first step to attract interest of people to obscure 60s bands is to have a really good general article--that way it can serve as a "hub," which can direct people towards the specific articles. But, maybe I'm spending too much time on this G.A. article (it is a really proving to be tough thing to write). I would like to switch focus to articles about bands. Right now I'll go finish the review for the Prunes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, your review was fine, but in order to "officially" make it a GA, you need to add the template. It is in the instructions on what to do.

As for your other comment, I would recommend you finish the G. R. article before going to bands. The G. R. article is a foundation for all those bands and it would be a shame if you cut your work short. I have said by the get-go that the article will be the best musical genre article when it's complete. And that is because of you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And you too, because your work has inspired me--all those wonderful articles, which gives me a boost up when I feel down or am unsure. You remind me of why I got into this in the first place. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I finished the review (my first review) for The Electric Prunes article. I pasted the G.A. thing to the top of the talk page of the article (as per instructions), so the bot is supposed to come and change it to G.A.. If I did it wrong let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

On to another project, thanks! I'd be happy to review any articles you edit, if you ever asked. I asked Ghmrytle if everything was concluded properly, since I feel a bot should have notified me of reaching GA status. The steps are a little confusing, but it's not a big deal. The important thing is the article reflects the importance of the band.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I was looking through unknown bands and I found this single by a group called Dr. Specs Optical Illusions. This song, "Tryin' to Mess My Mind", is simply incredible. I strongly recommend you give it a listen, I don't think they will dissappoint!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Awesome band!!! They were from my hometown of New Orleans--from the section called Gentilly (the suburban bungalow-style neighborhood where Walker Percy's The Moviegoer takes place). I believe the song you refer to appears on the various Louisiana Punk compilations. They did another great song, "She's the One," which appears on the highly-acclaimed Teenage Shutdown Vol. 10: The World Ain't Round It's Square compilation. I got to talk to their keyboard player at the Ponderosa Stomp Festival in 2013--what a great night that was (I could write a book about that one magical night)! Be sure to read the trivia on your talk page, because I put something related there, regarding another local band, the Gaunga Dyns. Some other great local bands: The Perisan Market, who did "Flash in the Pan." There is a song I really love by the Threshold of Sound, called "She's Mine." The way they say "duuude" sounds soooo working-class New Orleans. You'd be surprised, but we don't have a typical southern accent--but more a of a kind of "Brooklynese," similar to what you would hear in certain parts of NY or Philly. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know you knew of them. I wanted to write an article on the band so if you have any additional info, that would be really helpful. I actually visited New Orleans last year, too bad we didn't know each other yet. As for the article review, I saw some of the issues Ritchie333 pointed out and I addressed them (added catalogue #s, fixed links, removed quote, etc.). I'm not sure if that means it's complete, but I fixed the concerns that were said.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

GS67 (you don't mind your new occasional "nickname"--mine is "GP66")... GP66 has noticed that you made all of the changes they recommended, so the article looks ready to go GA. One little thing: Where it says: "...also included heavily-textured psychedelic guitar motif," put an "a," or "the" since you are now speaking in singular. It should read:

"..also included the heavily-textured psychedelic guitar motif..."

I'd make the change myself, but since I am the reviewer, I want to avoid conflict of interest--my review would no carry weight if I have done edits on the article, so I'll let you do the quickie edit. Then I'll go back and do the addendum to the review, and recommend the article for GA. All for the worthy cause of fellow scribe, GS67!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, it saves some time. I made the minor adjustment so if there is nothing else to tend to, I believe the requirements have been met.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a minor little grammatical thing. Now I'll go finish the GA review. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I just wrote Ritchie333 and asked him to go back over the article one last time, then I will do the revised review. I just want to make sure that everything is good to go, which it should now be to get G.A. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If you become interested in October Country (I am!) you might like this other group called the Smoke (I would type in "Michael Lloyd the Smoke") that were lead by the same individual. And of course if you really get into his music, I recommend the West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, and the Laughing Wind. By the way, is it ok if you archive this discussion? It is getting rather long. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinkin' the same thing. Scrolling down this thread is beginning to feel like unraveling to get to the final codex in Dead Sea Scrolls. So, let's start a new thread. When I archive this behemoth, I want to go in the archive and variegate it into different pages, but like usual, I don't know how. Last time, I just cut and pasted my stuff and put it in there, then deleted it from my talk page. Shows what a great Wikipedian I am! Of course, I put that in comments, so the Wiki police wouldn't cart me away. I've spent all my time up until now "fudging" my way through Wiki, with very little attentiveness to the actual rules and guidelines. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bruthers

The only source for The Bruthers (garage rock band) is allmusic.com. That website is not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be used at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Allmusic is used often a Wiki, and is usually considered by top-level editors to be a reliable source for musical topics (in rock). Allmusic has released major published books. All of their contributors are noted writers. Richie Unterberger, for instance, has written several books and is repected. I used a couple of citations from another article posted at Dangerous Minds. The info. in the Bruthers' article corroberates with material in the Joe Delia article. I always try to find corroborating sources. I will try to find additional sources for this article. We should be patient. This is a brand new article. So, it is a work in progress--in time the it will get better and better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339 allmusic.com is a well-used source in nearly ALL music articles. Anyways, I was here to ask Garagepunk a question. It is pretty broad, but I was wondering what is your favorite garage rock band?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, that's a tough question. I love so many of them--there is a lot of "democracy" to go around in garage. Obviously, some of the better known bands...the Seeds, the Standells, the Unrelated Segments. Evil (form Miami) and the Savages (from Bermuda) were especially really ground-breaking (very edgy, but also diverse), but broke up right before they made their big breaks. I think that they should be revered in the annals of punk right up there with the Stooges. I Love the Sons of Adam--if only Randy Holden could have stuck around longer (but he was also great with The Other Half and later Blue Cheer. I think that "Saturday's Son" is one of the greatest songs ever written. But then, I love some of the folkier sounding bands such as the Leaves (go to Youtube and check out a beautiful song, "Please," by The Masters of Stonehouse) and of course the psychedelic ("punkadelic") bands, such as the Electric Prunes--they were all so incredible--they really make you want to get a lava lamp and put on a Nehru jacket and love beads and get "groooooovy man." The Chocolate Watchband was interesting in that they could swing all the way from gut-bucket (2-chord) prima-punk all the way to the most exotic and esoteric of sounds. They should have gotten a lot bigger. And there are so many bands--thousands of them. It's just so hard to pick a favorite. They're all so wonderful. I discover "new" bands every day. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I knew it was a tough question, which is why I'm glad to see such an in-depth answer. I can tell our musical interests are similar. Personally, my favorites are The Music Machine, The Human Expression, Mystic Tide, and The Morning Dew. The Human Expression's music was particularly interesting, try listening to "Love at Psychedelic Velocity" if you haven't already. Mystic Tide had this soothing combination of psychedelic and garage rock that I instantly fell in love with. As for Morning Dew, I recommend their album, At Last, it is perhaps more progressive, but there are earlier recordings that show them in their experimental period, in which time they played folk rock, psychedelic rock, and electronic rock. I don't think I need to tell you how awesome the Music Machine is, protopunk at its best in my opinion. I will check out that song too, thanks for the recommendation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

All of those bands were so awesome. The Music Machine cut a lot of great songs (I love "The Double Yellow Line" and others), and they were able to achieve some bit of chart success--if they had stayed together longer, I think that they would have gotten a lot bigger. I love the song "Frustration" by the Mystic Tide--it is an incredible, intense explosion of punk and psychedelic. Then I love the Morning Dew's version of "No More," that appears on Garage Beat 66 Vol. 5. It is an alternate take that is ever so slightly faster than released version released on the Fairyland single. If they had released the brisker version, the song might have been a big hit. One thing that a producer is supposed to do is to determine the best take, and to my mind, that alternate take is the one with the "it" factor (although the released version is really good too). The faster version, like so many of the best garage songs, makes you want to fire up your '66 GTO and take it for a wild tire-trackin' spin around the neighborhood! And, oh, that scream is just so incredible!!! Platonic rock & roll! By the way, you've probably noticed that I love old cars.

The music of that time sounds like those Bill Mithchell-designed cars of the time--the clinging, clanging, sparkling, sometimes fuzzed-toned guitars sounded like the strips of chrome and chiseled lines...as well as that big rev under the hood! To me garage is the last era of vintage rock & roll in that it is a product of that more sweet and innocent time: amusement parks, drive-in theaters, gas-station attendants in bow ties,roadside archetecture and blinking signs, nurses in little white hats, the milkman who came to your door, AM radio, mom and pop restaurants and hamburger stands... I hear it all in the music.

It now seems almost mythical--a lost golden age. What Lester Bangs nostalgically refered to as "Old America." I realize that there were a lot of problems, such as Viet Nam, etc. But the 60s, for all of its rebelliousness/restlessness for newness and change (the beginning of a new era), was also the end of an older era as well. It is a paradox. But I think that the idealism of the 60s was actually a product of an older, more innocent midset--of the pioneering spirit of a nation that was still young at heart. A crucial turning point might have been the assassinations and riots in '68, but I think even more so was the corporate takeover of practically everything (including music, culture, the entire service industry) that happened after the 60s. Excessive corporatism is now strangling our spirit and culture. There is just so much cynicism now. People in a civilization have a right to be able to lift their hearts and minds to greater things. People such as JFK, Bobby, and Dr. King, as well as so many of of the musicians, were able to lift peoples' minds to great causes and ends. I miss that so much. We need that badly today. But, the whole system (political, cultural, social) is now owned by a few special interests. I didn't mean for this to turn into an essay, but I just can't help saying it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I completely agree with you. The young people then had so much ambition, whether it be from frustration or perhaps a different understanding, on changing how life should be lived. People today have lost that ambition, possibly from being too comfortable with conformity or the rise in technology could have definitely been a factor.

Anyways, about the music, I personally enjoyed "The People In Me" from The Music Machine. Sean Bonniwell could perfectly express teenage angst, which was complimented by his gritty vocals. They may have been a little ahead of their time though and, like most garage rock bands, their record labels failed them in one way or the other. That is a lesson I found when I wrote about The Cherry Slush. Their label literally sold them out when they went bankrupt, ending the band's chance of continued success.

Also, you may find these groups interesting: Scrorpio Tube ("White Birches"), The Deep (Psychedelic Moods album), Oscar and the Majestics ("House of The Rising Sun 1969" - that fuzz guitar is amazing!), and The Glass Family ("House of Glass"). I'm guessing you heard of at least one of these guys, but hopefully one of them are a suprise to you. Peace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll definitely check them out! Currently I am tidying up a new article that a relatively new editor, Bebfire (talk)‎ created on the band, Pitche Blende. I am going to need to find sources, and I want to add an info. box, etc. But you are also welcome to contribute to that article. I wrote a message to that editor and volunteered my support (I mentioned you as someone who can help). Perhaps, you could contact that editor as well, because that person seems to share our love of obscure music, but he is new and we could show him the "ropes." I think that in time he can turn out to be a terrific editor. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will try and contact the user, they actually have been around for five years, but I would still consider them new by their edit count. I will also try and fix up the article, but I will probably just try and teach him how to improve on writing articles. By the way, if you ever listen to those bands, I'd love to hear your opinion on them. No rush though, we both seem to be more busy lately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to keep up with those other editors, but I want to give the artists you recommended a Youtube spin! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The touch-ups are just what the article needed, thanks. I was suprised when I made the "Moulty" article that it wasn't already done. Interesting story, to say the least.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Man, what an interesting story--that is one song that really does have a story behind it! I really love that article. I am so moved when hearing the way you re-counted the story of Moulty's wounded hand. You put such "T.L.C." into the way you described that situation. I know how much you feel for people who have been maimed and injured. That concern really comes through. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to explain the situation delicately, because I know how personally traumatizing the situation must have been for Moulton. At first I didn't realize how much the song affected the younger generation until I started researching it. I'm glad you think I worded it appropriately, I had not wrote about something that unique until that song.

P.S. I have been writing about this band called The JuJus, and I recommend their song, "You Treat Me Bad". It was featured on the Pebbles compilation album, so it is possible you have heard it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, they had a bunch of great songs. I think I have most of the songs on various comps, such as Back from the Grave ("BFTG") and Teenage Shutdown. "Do You Understand Me" is on BFTG Vol. 1. "I'm Really Sorry is on Teenage Shutdown Vol. 9. And I think the fantastic song you refer to is on Teenage Shutdown Vol. 2. Both of the Shutdown albums have pictures of the Jujus on the front covers. Vol. 2 has a picture of them (which their parents took) of them coming down an airplane lift onto the tarmac--just like the Beatles exiting that Pan Am in Feb. '64! In the 60s your rock and roll dream could come true! I remember in that wonderful DVD documentary of Jefferson Airlplane, I think it was Jeff Kantner who said something to the effect of: "In 1966, all you had to do was wish and your wish would come true." He was so right!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I checked out your sandbox and that article is coming along well. If you would like me to make any additions, just let me know. Hey I noticed that you are working on an article for ? & the Mysterians. As it turns out, they already have and artilcle, entitled Question Mark & the Mysterians, but that article needs help, so maybe we could go in there in bolster the pre-existing article by adding sources, etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I usually like writing articles alone, but after it is created you can improve it in any way you want. I realized that there was a Question Mark and the Mysterians article, but usually when an article is in such need of repair, I just go to my sandbox to do so. I will probably almost completely rewrite it so I thought the sandbox was a good place to put it for now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I created The JuJus article, feel free to improve it any way you can.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. sorry if my last comment was rude, but when it comes to writing articles, I enjoy doing it so much that usually I do it alone. Afterwards, though I'm open to any contributions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No that is not rude at all. What you said is a perfectly understandable, and I usually feel the same way when I am creating an article. My only problem (as you've probably noticed) is that I have a nasty little habit of using the real articles as my own personal sandbox--I make a "play pen" out of the articles, rather than use my sandbox more often as I should. But right now my sandbox is filled with other things, and I guess I don't want it to become too full. Luckily, I always tidy up quickly behind my tracks, because I don't like leaving a mess behind. And, since I always put comments on every edit, it allows other editors to see my thought process as I go along. In that way I hope that I am being an asset, rather than a detriment. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You may have to look through AN/I's editing history, but an IP, presumably the one harassing me like the low-life he is, has threatened me with multiple socks, saying I'll wish I have never been born. People are so lovely, aren't they?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Try not to loose faith in humanity over one little simpleton/pinhead/fool. Pity that unlucky pea-brained individual and keep on doing the great things you do. Just a speed bump on the way to more important things. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also: I went and did some work on the Los Speakers article. I made some additions and touch-ups. I took some info from the Wiki article en Espanol. Admittedly it is unosourced, so I'm going to have to find sources for it, but it does give helpful information of the inception of the band, which is probably on the right track. We just need to find sources--they are unfortunately a hard find for that wonderful group who deserve so much better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Los Speakers are actually one of the few Spanish bands I listen to extensively, I actually have one of their original vinyls. However, I know very little about them from a historical standpoint because there are so little sources, a fate that many great Spanish bands suffer from. By the way, I'm past the halfway mark on my sandbox editing for ? and the Mysterians. I think after I finish the "96 Tears" section I'll place the info in so you can improve upon it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think after I finish work on ? And the Mysterians, I will help at the Barbarians page too. It is a shame so many relevant bands don't get the credit they deserve. Not that it is a terrible article, but I have found after awhile that so much more could be done to these kind of articles. Thanks for your work on The Missing Links, I absolutely love that band!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Check out my message at the "Trivia" board on your talk page. You will love my latest entry there! Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitche Blende

Thanks for you contributions and tweaks! I'm learning, but it's step by step! Feel free to tidy up and your feed back is appreciated. I'm interested in many different types of music. I am also researching Venus and the Razorblades as well as drummer Kenny Aronoff guitarist Roni Lee and Cherry Slush. Also Dick Wagner and the Frost, Feel free to check them out. kenny Aronoff article needs serious help. Reads more like a bio. Thanks for reaching out! Bebfire (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in finding out what Kenny Arnoff was up to in the mid-60s. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he was in a garage band. I think that he was born in Boston. I bet he was familiar with some of the bands there such as The Barbarians, The Remains, The Rockin' Ramrods, etc. As for Michigan, there were so many bands there--literally in the double-digit thousands. It was amazing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for your contributions on my article and your support !! I appreciate your feed back to! Bebfire (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you so much. I and I am grateful for your contribution as well. I am overjoyed that there are other editors interested in this wonderful music. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Spiders

Finally got around to taking a look at The Spiders article and the guidelines on titles. Based on the disambiguation guidelines, I think The Spiders (American rock band) is probably the appropriate title. In my opinion, if the band is notable enough to have its own article, it should be titled as such and not with a specific reference to Alice Cooper. I will, however, reference Alice Cooper in the brief description on the Spider (disambiguation) page that redirects from searching for "The Spiders." If the band is not that notable, then the information would only be included in the Alice Cooper page. Those are my thoughts, anyways. I'll do a little bit of cleanup on the article as usual. :) Bonnie (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as always. You have been so helpful!Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

New pages/moves

I'm happy to help! I can't move the pages, though, it required administrator help. You can request page moves at Wikipedia:Requested_moves and someone can take care of it for you. I would expect someone can help you out pretty quickly because I don't see why the moves would be controversial at all. I'll keep an eye on the pages and make sure to do some cleanup at some point. Bonnie (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as always. You are a saint. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Electric Prunes

Are you sure that you've followed all the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions? Most GA nominations that I've seen have set out a more rigid assessment against the criteria, so I think it may be a little premature in granting it GA status. But, as I've said to TheGracefulSlick, I'm not well-versed in GA procedures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the first review I've done, so I am really unfamiliar with the whole process. If there is anything you need me to change, or that I could do better, let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process either, but the instructions suggest that "if this is your first review, it is beneficial to ask one of the Good Article mentors to look at your review." That might be a very good idea, I think - Ritchie333 is one of those listed and may be prepared to offer some advice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GP66 for sticking through the review, I know it isn't the most glamorous part of Wikipedia. If the article isn't listed later on GA it may be template placement or we could ask Ritchie333 what is wrong. By the way, there is this band called Strawberry Window (awesome name!) that has nice psychedelic recordings that I recommend.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What a cool name--they just have to be great musically with a name that awesome. Hey, GS67, you'll notice that I created a new little thread below as a continuation of the prior thread (which I just dumped in the archive for posterity's lucky sake). Yea, the Smoke were so cool. When it gets down to it, you cannot beat those mod London-based Freakbeat bands for "cooler-than-thou" hipness factor. I love watching that movie, Blow Up, by Italian director, Michelangelo Antonioni that takes place in London in '66 (he was hangin' out a lot with Paul McCartney at that time--making experimental movies), with that scene featuring the Yarbirds! How poor GP66 would love to have been in Swingin' London at that time. How I would have given my left arm to have been in L.A. or San Fran in '66 and '67! But, then again, suburban and little-town USA was equally wonderful--a band on every block. Dorothy and Toto had a great adventure in OZ, but she came to miss Kansas: "There's no place like home." Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the reviewing for GA and you are supposed to add the article to the GA list (music category, of course). I think the not will then officially tell me about the transaction.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. [[3]]Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's confusing, it says a bot should notify the nominator and place the GA sign on the article itself. Something must be missing, but you did everything the directions told you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish they'd just get the darn G.A. done. Maybe we need to contact an administrator to complete the process. I'm sorry if I came up short in any ways--this was my fist time doing this kind of thing. If you were ever to ask me to review an article again, it would come out better next time, knowing what I now know. I hope you're not fed up. I'll do everything I can to help in getting this thing completed. I can't understand why this is taking so long--but then again, one of the bots said it sometimes takes up to seven days, so maybe it is on track. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was afraid you would get fed up by now. If you look over the whole section where you found the GA template, I believe there must be a step that hasn't been finished yet, otherwise I'm at a loss with what is wrong. I still trust you completely to do reviews, though it takes a while to get an article to GA status so don't expect another for some time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

On one hand, we could look at this whole thing, frustrating though it is, as a positive opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia and to grow as editors. But, it is just taking too much time. Tomorrow, I might try a little trick: I could temporarily undo the G.A. listing template which I had put in a few days ago--and then re-paste it back in. Maybe that could wake up the little bot to get crawling! Do you think that might work? Maybe I could "Jerry-rig" it and see what happens. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe this is why, read this: Fill in the topic and page number of the review. The five tildes supply the date of the review. The topic parameter refers to the topic abbreviations used on the GA page, but the template automatically converts GAN subtopics into GA topics, so reviewers may simply copy the parameter value from one template to the other. "Page" should be the number of the review subpage (that is, the n in Talk:ArticleName/GAn). The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters.

Update any WikiProject templates on the article talk page by changing the "class" field value to "GA" and save the page using "GA" in the edit summary

I'm not exactly sure what this all means, but you probably have some idea.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You might not like this suggestion, but - looking at WP:GAN/I - how would you feel about stepping back a little, simply nominating the article at this stage, and then waiting for another, uninvolved, editor to go through the process of reviewing it? I think you may be too personally involved in wanting to see the nomination succeed - and, with respect, too inexperienced in the process - to do it yourself. How about encouraging someone else, who is more experienced, to carry out the review? Then, you would see how the process works and be better prepared to do the process yourself next time. Sorry if that seems negative, but it might be better in the long term to be patient, and learn from others (not me, in this case!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right. While I probably could get it to work using the method described above, you have a point that some may allege that I am too involved and willing to see it nominated (I don't want them to think I'm "fanning air" onto the 8-ball to make it sink into the corner pocket). Of course, I know that you understand that I am mainly doing it because I recognize care and dedication that TheGracefulSlick has put into perfecting it and that I genuinely feel that the article is worthy of G.A., but others may not see my intentions that way. Obviously, I cannot deny that editors such as he and you are people that I have come to consider friends and allies, but that doesn't mean I can't be objective when assessing the quality of a piece--I wouldn't do a whitewash, but I realize others may see it as favoritism. So, I will take your advice and let someone else do it. I hope that TheGracefulSlick won't be mad or disappointed--I'm sure he will understand. I am confident that the article will achieve G.A. status regardless of who reviews it--it might just take a little longer, that's all. It will all work out for the best one way or another, because I believe that he has done a good job to get the article where it needs to be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made my comment before Ritchie333 made his comment here. He's an experienced reviewer, so if he's content, that's fine with me. I'll add in the sentence about the discussions over the name, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Do I have to undo my review and undo the G.A. listing tag I put one the talk page of the article, or will others take care of all of all that? If there is anything I need to do, let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I looks as if Ritchie333 has removed the old (non-G.A.) templates off of the talk page. Perhaps he feels that the article is ready for G.A. This may be good news. Perhaps I should just leave it the way he has it set up now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)== Music and Other Concerns Part II ==

TheGracefulSlick (aka GS67): Yours truly, GP66 has created this new thread as a continuation of the discussion on the previous "Music and Other Concerns" thread, which is now in the archive. Hey I noticed that you mentioned the Smoke (on a thread I can't find!--I saw it in the little message by the red number at the top of the page)--a band I really love--really cool Freakbeat band (although I'm assuming you are talking about the British band, the Smoke--I think there was also a lesser-known Australian group of the same name). They sang that incredible LSD song "My Friend Jack" (about Jack who eats all of the sugar cubes). Awesome song!!! I have them on a DVD taken from the German Beat Beat Beat show playing the song live. Its so cool--they scratch the strings of their guitars with bobby-pens to get that incredible scratching sound! I think The Move is on the same disc! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Though I too love the Smoke your refering to, I meant the Smoke that was lead by this guy named Michael Lloyd. I would write in his name with the band name if you look them up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to check 'em out. There were a few bands called the Smoke--but I bet the one you are referring to is really great! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally the issue was fixed. Thanks for staying through the process no matter how tedious it got. I'll call on you to review another (as long as you were uninvolved, editing-wise) article in the future. And here is another band called Bohemian Vendetta. They had some decent cover versions, but the gold was, in my opinion, their original material.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Great band! I was thinking about doing an article on them (would that be OK with you?--but if you insist on doing it, just let me know), but first I want to by their album (I have a couple of their songs on comps and have listened to all their stuff on YouTube), but I want to have the whole album at my disposal before I do their article. After I finish the G.R. article, it will free up my hands to do articles on a bunch individual bands. I want to mention them in the G.R. article too--I'll probably add the mention later when I get their band article written. I love their song "Like Stone." I believe that they were an incredible band that should have been more successful. They badly deserve recognition. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No prob, I have other projects, including this other band I recommend called the Freeborne, so they are yours to write about. I have their album on CD and it is one of my favorite psychedelic works. I will edit it when it's created if that's ok with you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have to check them out! I'm beginning to develop section about psychedelic garage in the G.R. article--I'm on the preamble, so I haven't yet gotten to the actual discussion of bands--but it sparked me to reflect on the whole meaning of the decade, so I hope I'm not going overboard--but I'm trying to capture the social, political, and cultural backdrop-I am trying to capture the "spirit" of the 60s thing. But I'm going to have to backtrack and find sources to confirm my thoughts--they are out there. I remember once reading an essay in a songbook, Great Songs of the 60s, where Tom Wicker reflects on some of these things, which have permeated my very soul (and the same kinds of ideas have influenced you as well). I know that the liner notes the Nuggets 4-cd box set delve in to this terrain. I would be remiss if I didn't capture the social milieu, because it is so important to the music. Check it out in my sandbox #3.

NOTE: I think what I'm going to do is add new sections into the G.R. article two different stages, because the enormity of the whole thing is beginning to become very burdensome. What I could do is add some sections (which is a lot of stuff) into the article very soon (the stuff in Sandbox #1). I can go ahead source the stage-1 additions (in Sandbox #1), then right after everyone's feedback, I can add them into the G.R. article.

Then later, I can develop my stage-2 additions (in Sandbox #3). The psychedelic section will come in the stage-2 additions, which I can hopefully have about a week or so later. By dividing the additions into different stages, it will relieve me of the burden of having to worry about too much all at once. I can think of the later-stage additions as finite things to be added, without worrying about having to hold up the whole world like Atlas. That makes it more manageable. That way Atlas won't shrug. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I like what I see so far, especially how you organize the such enormous topic into easy-to-find subsections, even creating categories people may not be as knowledgeable in. I'm also glad to see you realize the significance of the Deep, whos album was possibly the first psychedelic musical piece recorded (the term "psychedelic" was first seen in its title) and are planning to add them in.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It is sad that such a trailblazing band is almost unknown to most people. They should be worshipped like gods in rock, but instead they are unknown--what a tragedy. Do you think I should do the additions in stages? You'll notice that I am taking a lot of things out of sandbox #1 and putting them in sandbox #3 for the second stage of additions. Do you think that is a good idea? I don't know how I can do it any other way. The branches on my tree would break (from the weight) any other way. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but at least their albums are being rereleased. I say "albums" because a second album called Psychedelic Psoul was recorded by the same group under the name, The Freak Scene. They even have a cover of "My Rainbow Life" by the Third Bardo, which Rusty Baker, the founder of the Deep, produced. Well, anyways, I would continue what you are doing, breaking it down into sandboxes. It allows you to keep things more organized and to find things easily.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to check out them out...and Freak Scene too. Which brings me to a very interesting point. I am very interested not only in them, but what also in may be an actual term called "freak scene." I know that in the 60s they had "freaks" (hippies, radicals, hipsters and all that and there were hip scenes) and all of that. But, I came across a Wiki article called Freak scene which looked dubious and was completely unsourced, so I contacted Ghmyrtle and we worked on it a little to bend it into what we think is a better shape. Make me a promise: Do not read the article just yet (promise!). Do not do any research just yet (promise!). From the top of your head, to the best of your current knowledge, can you tell me what the term "freak scene" means, as best you can answer? I won't be mad if you say you don't know, because I don't know either! I don't want you to have any other pre-conceived notions, but just to tell me off the top of your head. Tell me what you think. Then, after that, you can read the article and do any research you want. Promise? What does the term mean to you? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I always thought "freak scene" was a term used to describe radical hippies (not "radical" in a bad sense). The first person that comes off the top of my head is Frank Zappa. But other than that, I'm not too sure about the phrase.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I think too. By the way, you are welcome now to read the article. I will put a blue link above. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: See the talk page behind the article and view the history of changes. Also see Ghmyrtle's talk page--although it may now be in his 1000-page archive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I read into it more, perhaps I could try a little editing later. I'll be a little tied down with some AN/I drama from the usual person. Don't worry, I did nothing wrong, and, one way or another, this will be the last time I will have to deal with this mess. Then it is back to my projects, I think I will focus on this album called Side Trips, by Kaleidoscope.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I.m sorry that you are still having to deal with that contentious individual. But, good luck with the edits. Do not let that nonsense deter you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, the admin saw that the ANI the individual started was just in some form of "revenge", but no actual merit. This all started like three months ago just because I voted (with good reason, everyone else also voted the same) delete on one of his articles. The user quickly "retired" yesterday to avoid scrutiny (again) and a probable long-term block. But they will be back unfortunately, on some other account, and will continue to not listen to more experienced users who tell him he needs to take more time and care to write meaningful articles and reliable sources. Maybe if he took some advice from you on crafting an article like the G. R. one, he could make a GA or two.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Or from you, with The Electric Prunes (which will become G.A.) and so many other fine articles. But, I guess we shouldn't waste our breath on that sore individual. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, the highlight of my day is when an editor addresses me as "m'lady", it's funny when people make that honest mistake, calling me a female. Comes with the name I suppose. When do you plan to write Bohemian Vendetta? No rush, I'm just excited to edit it when it's complete.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'll remember right at fist when I made that same mistake of referring to you as if a female (I hadn't yet read your user page--but you corrected me--I'm still sorry--but I know you're rightfully proud to be associated with the hallowed likes of Grace Slick!). As for Bohemian Vendetta, let me first finish my two primary stages of block extensions to the G.R. article. Then I'll have a free hand to do band articles again. I've had to put the Shags (from Connecticut) on hold, until I finish this monstrosity that has become the G.R. article (I feel like I am knee-deep in the big muddy--kind of like 'Nam circa '68--I've loved working on the article, don't get me wrong, but I can't wait to be able to get on to other things). My first stage should come pretty soon, then the next stage shortly after--then I'll make Bohemian Vendetta my first band priority, even over the Shags. So, it won't be too long--hopefully I can get it in by the end of the month or shortly thereafter. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, also happy 4th of July to you and your family! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, usually when I'm on a big project like the Electric Prunes I had side projects. I just didn't want you to get bored on the same project all the time, though I know how interesting the subject is. Bohemian Vendetta's lead singer, whoever he is, I don't know a whole lot about them, vocals were crazy. I listened to "Pleasure" and their cover of "House of the Rising Sun", and I don't know how he makes those high-pitch wails.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, now and again could you add a citation (allmusic.com will be fine for instance) to the band's listed as garage rock. That way we can remove that tag at some point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I was doing other side projects, but in the last week I decided to put them on hold, except for helping with the G.A. thing, which I was glad to do. I have to ask for your patience and understanding. The G.R. project is a whole animal unto itself--it is so huge in scope--and its not just the length of it, but it involves a whole set of steps logistics that are unlike anything I've ever done--it has a structure that is more complex than what I've previously encountered. Before beginning the writing I had to seek out over a hundred bands and them arrange them not only by country, but also city and region. While writing it, it is as if each sentence is a mini-article unto itself, because I have to access a completely different set of references and links each time I make a statement (I didn't print the citations in the first drafts, because I want to see readable text in my edit box while I write--but I am still accessing sources and researching bands as I go). Usually in most articles, I am able to "surf along" with a singular narrative line or a few narrative lines from a few sources and get into the "groove" or "flow" and ride with it--I can hit a quick tempo with the wind at my back. But, this time it is as if I am arranging a symphony of narratives, trying to beat them into one coherent narrative. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, but it is more difficult and time-consuming than what I bargained for, and each little part takes time. I should probably do as you say and step away now and then and do other articles, then come back, but I feel an inner pressure to get it done soon. This article is the dream of my life at Wikipedia. I feel that we are now just a few steps away from having the finest encyclopedic article about this musical genre ever written in the English language. I want this article to be a monument for future generations to draw inspiration and knowledge from. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some of the bands you plan to include, don't have articles. If you want, I can write some so you have some links to those groups. Some of the recent ones I made do link, but that was happy coincidence. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia's standards, some of the bands are not notable enough for a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be really kind. I was meaning to ask, but I didn't want to take you away from what you are busy with, but yes that would be very kind--I need your help. A lot of the bands in Sandbox #3 can go in at a later phase (in the next month, some later). For the red-letter bands in sandbox #1, we can either create articles soon, or I can put them in black letters when I enter the first stage of additions, and have citations after the sentence. As for some of the least-known bands, I realize that I may have to make black-letter allusions certain songs of theirs that are considered garage classics, (and put a citation afterward). There may have to be some bands removed from inclusion (I hate the thought, but I am braced for that possibility). I made an article for a band that only made one single, the Shames, and I know that eventually it will probably fall prey to deletionsits--but they recorded a song that Tim Warren considers to be the greatest piece of wax ever recorded by a New England garage band, "My World is Upside Down," and what a great song it is--it just epitomizes the genre, but I know that Wiki cognoscenti would gladly have it thrown into the scrap heap. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just give me some names of bands you want as first priorities and I'll see what I can do. I'm going to finish a page on Dr. Spec's Optical Illusion and then I can start work on articles for the bands you would want.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll do that. By the way--go to your talk page: I have a new thread there about Dr. Spec's Optical Illusion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The page is created, edit it if you want.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can go ahead and do articles on any of the bands in red letters in my sandbox #1, because those are the ones I will need very soon. I realize that there are a couple of bands, such as the Roosters and Ty Wagner, where there is not much information, and that is a tragedy, because they have done some classic songs which are on comps. I may have to exclude mention of some bands (ouch!), but I realize that there has to be something to go by. Is it OK, if you step away from some of the things you're doing right now to help me. I want to have the first stage of additions put in this week. That would be so kind. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I can work on the Montells first if that is ok. I wanted to work on band's outside the U.S., but they rarely get covered for some reason. I have written about Wimple Winch, Larry's Rebels, and Toggery Five, but even they deserved more sources. I'll look more into outside the U.S. section after the Montells. I just need to finish a brief article than I'll get started.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Try to focus on the bands red-lettered in Sandbox #1 first. By the way, I dig the Montells. They tie right in with Evil--they were like a sister-band and shared the drummer Jeff Allen (after the Montells, he went over to Evil). He would take occasional trips to England and watch all of the latest beat group-action in the Swignin' London rock scene, and bring back and share his observations with both bands. I want to do an expansion of the Evil article at some point, but I will have to wait--I've got so much on my plate. I hope you liked some of my things in the Dr. Spec's article--I acknowledge that you had a point about the sub-sections, however much I love to do them (I am chronically addicted to sub-sections). I love to dress up and article and make it look really nice--everything down to the size and shape of the paragraphs, the size and position of pictures, etc., almost as if I am designing the graphics in a book, so please don't be mad if I went a little overboard with the sub-sections--I hope you understand--its just my creative instincts. And oh, that list of associated acts: I did that as kind of a joke--I was going to take most of it out, maybe leave one or two acts--but I imagined you'd be amused to see all of those bands! I think that would be OK to keep one or two--keep in mind that small-name articles are not as scrutinized, so you can occasionally "bend" little rules--as long as it is in the interest of making the article as good and informative as it can be (I want the reader learn about a couple of other New Orleans acts--I care more about the reader's education than the Wiki cognoscenti who could care less about obscure garage bands)--nothing is totally cut dry at Wiki--sometimes there is a certain amount of "grey area" and occasionally things can be left to the judgment of a conscientious and well-minded editor--provided of course that other conscientious editors are willing to go along. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as the band's you list have recorded something, than I'd be ok with it. They need to have at least that. I wasn't mad about the subsections but I know if I didn't remove them someone else would anyways. I can possibly do an article on Limey and the Yanks, but the other bands just don't seem to have enough sources to construct an article that won't be deleted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes we have to keep that in mind. I realize that certain bands currently in red are not going to get their own articles or make it into the G.R. article--tragic but true. Life is unfair. But, a minimum requirement should always be that a band recorded. I wouldn't have it any other way--I've listened to every one of these bands, and many of their songs are classics. There are probably over 3300 bands who I have listened to (and about 1000 I own recordings of) that are not included in the discussion. Ty Wagner's "I'm a No Count" is a bona-fide classic (by the way I got to speak to Ty Wagener at the 2013 Ponderosa Stomp--and his song was treated as a signature anthem at the show--the MC begged him to play it a second time as an encore for the wildly enthusiastic packed crowd and he did!!!). I cannot believe that there is so little written about him on the internet--I am positively shocked. The Roosters are on high-profile comps like Rhino's Nuggets: Where the Action Is and on Pebbles Vol. Yet there is little about them on Goggle searches. Yes, it's the bands that recorded songs who have inspired people like us, and I wouldn't think about including any band that did not factor strongly in their region.

As for bands that didn't get a chance to cut wax--I'm sure that they were wonderful too, but we will never know what they were like, and there some-odd 100,000 recorded bands standing in front of them on the waiting list--their memory is more for just family and friends. I know that 60sgaragebands.com and other sites memorialize certain bands that didn't record, and I recognize that there is a place for that, but Wiki would not be the right venue to cover them (we're not Ancestry.com)

But, yes, as I said before, we may have to leave some of the bands currently mentioned on the cutting room floor (however unfair and painful--I will probably have to take out the Shames so that their band article does not become vulnerable to deletionists). If there are not enough good sources to construct an article then, we will have to shift priority to other bands where articles are possible. Don't feel pressure to do an article on a band that won't yield sources. I intentionally put a few too many here, so that when we whittle down, there will still be a lot left. However, every band here--if the sources are plentiful enough--would merit inclusion. But, for those otherwise deserving bands, where the sources are insufficient, so be it. That is a tragedy, but I accept it. Let's get articles made on the ones that we can do.Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if Limey and the Yanks doesn't have a huge article like I did with the Cherry Slush. There are sources but not to the point where I can make an in-depth timeline. There is possibly a few groups in the other sandboxes that can be written about as well. Make sure you get some opinions from other editors before placing the content in. There could be a ton of fallout from making such a change. Even I (reasonably) got some resistance from Ghmyrtle for adding in content on the Electric Prunes. In the end, however, it clearly was for the best, and I expect the same from the additions you will make with the G. R. article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to worry if the new band articles are not yet "magnum opi" just yet. The main thing is that we get the articles made (obviously at the minimum acceptable standards of quality--just enough to lay decent foundations for future deveelopment)--then we can go back later and make expand them and make them more deluxe. I might create the one for the Bees--I'd like to do that one--if the sources are good enough. However, if you want to do that article, that's fine with me (just tell me)--right now I can't afford to be selfish and territorial about pet-projects I have wanted to pursue--I have to subjugate my ego to what is best for achieving the larger purpose of the G.R. article. I am guessing that when I finish the two to three phases of expansion, the article will have tripled or quadrupled in length and gone from approximately 72 sources to somewhere between 200--300 (or maybe up to 400), I don't have a crystal ball. I will ask for informal feedback upon entering the staged portions of text--I may get some resistance about expanding the parameters of the article to include areas outside of the US, but I think the sources warrant it. I have a 400-page book about the garage'60s punk bands in Australia. I just finished reading a book covering Indian garage/psychedelic--I need to set that up for a future expansion. I'll put off any formal review until later this year or early next year, because there will be areas of refinement after the staged expansions--I'm going to have to go back and check every single source in the article, whether the ones I put in or which others have put in, to make sure that they all are detailed and accurate to the umpth-degree, before asking a formal review. I will go through the whole text to make sure that it is smoothly, richly, and accurately well-worded top to bottom. But, I thank you so much for your help. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I should be able to conduct the review as well. It might take a few days by the sheer width of it and I would want to be extensive on its review, but since I haven't made any edits to it, I should be able to review if you ask. I've been having some more article ideas (Ignition, Amos Records, etc.) so I have been a little busy, but I would make it my number one priority. I can start Limey and the Yanks tomorrow so I have a fresh start. I'd be more intrigued when you start the foreign sections, particularly India, which I was unaware had a psychedelic music scene. Though I love their sitar players like Ravi Shankar and Harihar Rao.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is so kind of you, and I will let you know when the time comes. Luckily for you, I will probably wait until the later part of this year or early next to have it formally reviewed--I'm going to have smooth over a lot of rough-edges between now and then, so you don't have to worry about the burden of doing it too soon. I'll let you know come the time. But, I will make the first phase additions very soon (like in a matter of days or within a week): Before I enter the new phases of text, I'll consult the other editors' feedback informally on the talk page--and maybe wait about a few days before I paste it in (the consensus has really already been reached not only to expand the article, but also to extend the scope to encompass other counties--I raised the international issue in the "Expansion" talk thread exactly one year ago this very day and no one has objected--so in my mind the light is now green). So, before I enter the text, I hope the discussion will be about small matters--how to perfect it and tidy up, trim a few small things here or there, or what to add, etc.), but I may have to face skeptics--I hope not, but I am braced. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find much to point out so far on the G.R.'s developement, since I know you are still in the process. Though I'm not what you call an "expert" on what the other guys want out of an article. I usually just write it and brace myself for criticism and revise when needed. In a similar aspect I was going to ask you eventually to review my work on Country Joe and the Fish, when the time comes. I have the beginning of a draft, but I have quite a bit of history to go before I'm complete. I was waiting for a book I ordered specifically about the band before I continued much further. I would ask if you didn't edit too much on the article until I include the additions, but I can't really stop you from doing so. This article may just top the thoroughness of the Electric Prunes, and I'm actually genuinely proud of it thus far, even though I'm typically hard on myself.

Well, it must be really good so far. I think that the circle of editors who frequent garage stuff are pretty much in agreement with me on the major issues. So, I think it will go over well for the most part. And I'd be glad to help w/ the reviewing of CJF. Just let me know when. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Two bands that I'd like to add for discussion are The Chob, from New Mexico, who did "We're Pretty Quick" and The Banshees, from Chicago who did "Project Blue." However, I may have to leave them out because I don't see an AllMusic bio. It is just sad that bands who did work this groundbreaking are so little thought of outside of garage circles. Garage fans rate these songs as millstones. Maybe I could add them down the road, but that will have to wait. By the way, don't feel to pressure to do more than is possible in writing band articles. For red letter bands we don't get an article on, I will convert some of them to black letter (if I can find at least AllMusic a reference to put in citation at end of sentence) or I can remove some the bands from the text (ouch). Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I finished the two articles I was working on, so I can start on Limey and the Yanks. I may be going back and forth between it and another topic I had in mind, but regardless I'll have it complete by tomorrow.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is so kind. You'll notice I'm logging in the citations into the prototype of the G.R. article right now. I'm trying to make them really detailed, so I'm doing more that just cutting and pasting. I'm researching each one individually and making each one from scratch (like Grandma's biscuits).Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: GS67, you'll notice that I am beginning to "extrude" things a bit. I had remove several bands from mention in the G.R. article. However, they can be added at another time down the road, when better sources become available. Also (or as you like to say, "Anyways..."), this tread has gotten rather long, so I will start a new thread below, called "G.R. article."Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

G.R. article

Here is a new thread to discuss expansion of G.R. article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really dissappointed but I couldn't find enough sources for Limey and the Yanks to make a reputable article. However, I still want to help and I noticed Richard and the Young Lion's article needs a lot of work, so I'll do that instead. I also am going to create an article on the Knaves. You should hear them, they are awesome!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. I may put the Limeys' mention in black letters (if I can have at least one source as good as AllMusic to cite after the sentence) or remove their mention (and put them in the Sandbox #3 warehouse). I will probably have extricate the Roosters, and with tender loving care, safely move them to the SB-3 coop. Hey, you've noticed I've added a few "grace notes" to Dr. Spec's. I want to try to find more info., but I'll put that on hold and get back to the G.R. article. Hey I like the changes you made to your user page. I notice you're really into the blues too. I've listened to a lot of delta blues--I'll sometimes drink a shot of whiskey when I'm listening those old delta recordings. I might start contributing to articles on the blues, but for the next one to two years I want to focus on the garage area, because it is so under-documented right now at Wiki. I've kind of created and namesake and character, as well as theme around my current focus. But in a year or two, I will probably broaden my "theme." But, I'm gonna keep my car in the "garage" for awhile. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I too originally came here just to focus on one aspect, which was psychedelic rock. But after listening to this relatively unknown blues player, Blind Connie Williams, I got hooked on 30/40s blues. Of course I also expanded to other subgenres of Rock, but in a year or so I plan to write more about alternate lifestyle. I've made one already and found it interesting so why not, right?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

More power to you! By the way, you will notice I put a comment on the talk page involving that "other editor." I cannot stand idly by and watch you have to continue to endure this when you are trying to serve the good of others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, expect some rant from him some time, however. I know one is supposed to assume good faith, but he does everything in his power to make one think otherwise. I just feel terrible knowing the articles he writes about almost downright disgrace the name of the subject. And sad thing is, he thinks it's a good thing to have 100s of those kinds of articles over one detailed one. I'm not saying I am perfect when it comes to articles, but at least I try. Which is the major difference with that editor and why he needs a ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad articles I can somewhat understand (though of course, like you I strive for quality and have little tolerance for crap). But, slandering the name of a good person with high ideals, I cannot. Maybe, I've put myself in the hornets nest by going onto that thread, but I just can't stand to see what he is trying to do to hurt you. It is so wrong. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not that he doesn't have potential, he just squanders it every opportunity he gets. We strive for quality like you said, but he strives for crap and excepts everyone else to clean it up. There are some many other problems I can go into, but that is why he is at AN/I. It's taking awhile, but by the time it's closed he will more than likely finally get some punishment. It's a shame it has to come to this, I truly love every person here, though he will beg to differ, and it upsets me when a chance to collaborate is taken so far off course.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, so much for that little interlude. Back to the discussion about the article and about music. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't think we need to worry about him anymore. Today, I found the H. P. Lovecraft II album, so it's been pretty awesome. I'm not sure about your opinion on them but I love their work, especially "The White Ship". Anyways, I was wondering how you plan to integrate the info you have into the G. R. article? I've seen how enormous it is, so moving it isn't an easy task.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not I haven't gotten to hear the H. P. Lovecraft II album, but I know I'd love it. I think your advice on music is always a good thing to take. I've always wanted to get a copy of the Smithsonian Folkways Anthology of American Folk Music. But I'll have to wait 'till I pay off my car--is expensive (almost as much as a monthly note), but I bet it's worth every penny. I think I read somewhere that Dylan had a copy and loved the album when he was getting started in the folk scene. The songs inspired him as (I'm guessing that you have might a copy?) they have inspired you. And, I know they will inspire me when I save up to buy the album. I have a feeling that you'd urge me to do so. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It is worth the wait, it serves as an excellent introduction into blues of the 1920s/1930s, even from relatively unknown, but influential artists. I noticed that some of the artists were not represented on Wikipedia (probably because much of their personal life is so unknown) so I started writing as much as I could. Believe it or not, an almost forgotten blues musician's recordings, by the name of Blind Connie Williams, is what got me into blues. Unfortunately, so little is known about these people but at least their records survived.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What we do here is so important, because we are documenting the history of practically unknown, but indigenous people who have made precious pieces of music that are national treasures (and treasures of humanity), which are in danger of being forever lost or destroyed due to neglect. Some "cognoscenti" may disagree with me, but in my mind there is no higher calling here at Wikipedia than to try to perpetuate the memory of these obscure artists who have made music that, though practically unknown, are nonetheless worthy of historical remembrance, not just for their own sake but for ours and the future generations as well. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That is why I love seeing compilations along the lines of Nuggets or Pebbles since much of their content is reflected on little-known bands that failed to chart. It wasn't because they were untalented, in my opinion some of them are better than the groups that did chart. In fact, one of my favorite garage rock songs, "You Must Be A Witch", would sadly have been completely forgotten had it not been for Nuggets.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What a great song! Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. I have finished the Stage I expansion of the G.R. article! I have put a message in the talk section of the G.R. article talk page and will be entering the text very soon. I welcome you comments, in fact I hope that you find time to be active in the discussion there for a while. Go to my sandbox I and talk page and give it a look! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I was really trying to move forward on the Country Joe and the Fish article. I'm trying to be real in-depth which makes it time-consuming, I haven't even started writing about their first album! I'll prob jump in the G. R. discussion later, since it looks like Ghmyrtle already got to some points.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that its going to be a wonderful article--with all of the dedication to quality that you always put into everything you do, there could be no other possible result. I can't wait to see it when it's done! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I always get distracted by smaller articles I want to make, so it will take a while to complete. I will look over the G. R. article for wikilinks, notes, etc. but nothing real huge. A little off topic, but I found the Barbarians' only album after a new stock at the record shop I go to. They wanted $100 for it! I can't be spending that much at once, so I couldn't buy it, which is dissappointing, but I did manage to bargain for the Shadow of Knight's first two albums. I prefer their second LP over Gloria, but I realize how essential it is to garage rock. I'm more excited for the album Angry Young Them (by Them, or course!), the store said they would hold for me when it arrives. Their version of "Gloria" is the best, in my opinion, and it is a shame the lyrics were deemed inappropriate by radio stations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2015 (UTCYeah ,

Man, that store sounds like the coolest place! It is great that there are people who love all of this wonderful music, whether it be garage, psychedelic, or country blues--or so many other forms. On the topic of blues, I love some of those delta cats like Son House, Skip James, Charlie Patton (he always sounded so perfectly drunk on every recording). But, you're about to turn me onto some of the even more obscure artists--I'm gonna have to save up and buy that Smithsonian Folkways anthology when I finish paying off my car. You know, I went through a phase where I was gettin' into stuff like Ella Fitzgerald--the sound of hear voice just brings me so much joy and Sinatra, who is just the coolest M.F. that ever walked the face of the earth. And you know the great thing--I still love them all. I may go through phases, but there is not any music that I have ever loved that I don't keep on loving! All of these people have given me so much inspiration in my life and they keep on giving. And, I know how much all your favorites have inspired you too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

At first, to be honest, music never really meant anything to me. It was before I listened to anything from the 60s and I just assumed all the music sounded as terrible as it did now. I remember it was the Doors and Queen that got me started, then I also found these obscure acts I equally love. I would progressively go back in time and that is when I found the blues. If you like the blues musicians on the Smithsonian album you might like Charley Jordan, Woodrow Adams, and Stringbean Akeman (his death was really unfortunate and senseless, by the way).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You were born to love music and it has been part of your destiny from day one. You were only waiting for the right moment to arrive to reveal the truth that was there all along. It is so sad that so much of the corporate pap played today is so devoid of all heart and soul. You are fortunate to have found your calling. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that you're really busy--and I know all the great work that you are putting into Country Joe's article and so many other things. But, I was wondering if you could take a few moments of your time and take one last look at the G.R. article (in my first sandbox) before I enter it in. Are there any things in the new text that you find objectionable or any claims that are not properly substantiated? Do you approve of all of the major areas of coverage (i.e. do you agree that there should be sections covering the international counterparts)? Is there anything there that you fundamentally disagree with or feel should be removed or drastically modified? Are there any major areas there now that you would not, in good conscience, be willing to defend me on if I come under negative criticism from "reductionists?" Do you feel that all of the new areas are needed? I would understand if you disagree, but please let me know now in advance (before I enter-in the new sections). Please get back to me soon. I put off the entry an extra day, so that I could make the changes that Ghmyrtle recommended. I'll try to hold off one more day. You are welcome to let me know right here on this thread. How do you feel about everything? Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Garagepunk66 - Just a plea from me - when you make your changes, please, please edit one section at a time, rather than trying to input all your changes in a single "superimposed block" as you call it. It makes it much, much easier for other editors to see what you have done, and see whether we agree with you. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your plea is heard! I will add one section at a time. I just added the changes to the Heading and Origins sections and made one correction in characteristics, which I know you will agree with. The changes in Origins go right along with your advice. The parts (additions) will go in one-at-a-time in intervals of every day or so. I am really itching to get this done--I don't think anyone can fathom how arduous this project has been--it has been like climbing Mt. Everest--a lot harder than anything I could have possibly imagined it would be, and I just want to get nearer to the seemingly endless destination. But, I don't want to make things hard on you or others. I'm sure you understand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the folk rock boom of the mid-sixties, which many American garage acts emerged from, be included as well?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It definitely should be mentioned. I think there is a reference to it at the end of origins, and we could do more to mention folk influence on individual bands. I will bring up Dylan in the psychedelic section and should also make allusion to folk rock there. It might be testing the other editors' patience to ask for a full section, because I am asking them to embrace the international aspect of garage right now and I don't want them to think I'm asking for too much. But, I like the way you see how in the 60s everything was inter-connected, which is how I would love music to be again. Musicians then weren't so much worried about distinctions as with the larger consciousness. There were so many overlapping boundaries and people were just reaching beyond themselves--so when we speak of garage as a "genre" we have to remember to see how it fits in the larger context of its time and place, and I'm glad you recognize that. I want the article to be able to capture that. How do you like everything else in there? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well Ghmrytle brought up some of my concerns. Obviously it is a lot more in-depth which is always an improvement. As you are aware the UK's scene wasn't really garage rock, but more so freakbeat. It was not really involved in garage rock as a whole, but rather it's own identity. Some of the writing can be a little non-neutral and empathetic toward the genre, but that too can be addressed. So to sum everything up, other editors will rework it, there are not any blatant flaws, and in the end, the article will be improved.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, what I did was I went in and re-worded the British section, to make mention of that distinction (I put in a "caveat" explaining that generally British bands are not formally classified as garage, but that share similarities). Freakbeat would be the wing of the UK scene that most closely resembles American garage, and it would be of prime interest to people wanting to know more about garage. So, I think that any article that fails to mention the British connection would be woefully inadequate, and I hope you agree. There are certain British bands that come extremely close to garage (early Kinks, Pretty Things, and Downliners Sect), and some, like the Troggs that essentially are garage--I know that Lester Bangs thought so, but I don't word it that way, I just recount that in '71 Bangs called them "punk." I re-named the whole international section "International counterparts" and put a careful explanation about it in the heading, which places things in a slightly different context--making it possible to establish connections with the UK, without sounding like we are formally classifying it as garage. By the way, If there are any phrases or sentences that do not sound neutral, quote them (and tell me which sections they are in) and I can go back and modify them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some more improvements in wording to the British section re-named it "British influences." That places things in a slightly different context. Do you think I'm moving it in the right direction? And, if there are any other things in other places, as I said, be sure to point them out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little more concerned about expanding the influence of the folk rock boom. The Byrds were who instigated the whole boom with their cover of "Mr. Tambourine Man". Dylan came in later when he recorded Highway 61 Revisited, but the boom had already begun. I think that needs to be explained over more than one brief sentence since so many bands such as the Leaves, the Music Machine, the Music Explosion, etc. came from a folk rock background.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we need to say more about folk rock (on the folk rock recording side, Dylan beat everyone to the punch--he came out with "Subterranean Homesick Blues" and Bringing it All Back Home earlier in '65--I think before the Byrds' first releases, but of course the Byrds had been playing as a live act for awhile, so it all evens out). Wait until I do the psychedelic section (see it in my sandboxes 3 and 4--I'm getting little "sand box crazy" these days), and I'll go into that--the enormity of this whole project is such that I can't do everything at once--Rome wasn't built in a day. But, that would be a good place to go into it--give me some time. I already have Dylan in the rough sketches, and I will also mention the Byrds there too. I can also expand mention of folk rock at the end of Origins section. As for any other additions people would like to see: I am happy to add things, (and happy for suggestions), but let me get through the first legs and hurdles. I want to polish this text down here and then add the sections of Japan/Far East, Australia, and psychedelic. Then, after that I can add any other things in. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the changes yet, but will do over the next few hours, I hope. Just a point about sources. The way these articles should be written is by identifying the best sources first, structuring the article and writing the text accordingly, and then tweaking the text to accommodate other, less reliable, sources and information where necessary. The best sources to use are existing good quality encyclopedias, textbooks (yes, they exist even for rock music!) etc., and recognised experts. I'd class someone like Richie Unterberger as an excellent reliable source - but some of the other articles on Allmusic, for example, are extremely inaccurate, and using band's own websites or blogs for information can be problematic (but can also correct obvious errors). I'm sure you know all that, but I thought it might be worthwhile just giving a quick reminder. And, of course, personal opinions are not allowed (apart from my own, of course....  !!). I don't know if you've come across User:Dan56 - he can be unpleasant to deal with, but he writes good articles that might be worth looking at. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll go back and make sure that the best sources are listed first and make sure all statements agree with the highest level source first. I'll try to see if I can find any relevant info in encyclopedias and textbooks. I'll take a look at some of Dan56's stuff (but I'll heed your warning and not try to contact him personally). As for all sources, whether higher or lower-level, I try to keep a critical eye. For instance, if I think a source or an author is making a mistake, I disregard it. I will not cite something my best judgment deems to be inaccurate. I try to use discernment--I usually have a good way of ferreting things out and getting to the truth of the matter, but I'll admit that in a body of text as large as what I'm working on it is harder to assess my own writing as objectively as usual. I try to avoid opinion, but I realize that if the it accidently springs up here or there, then I have to go back and check myself and remove it. I re-wrote the British section and will modify it even more if need be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor point - please don't use 50s, 60s, etc., when you mean 1950s, 1960s. Guidance (somewhere in WP:MOS) is not to use abbreviations like that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that rule applies to when we are making a literal or face-value statement, but the last sentence of the heading is not that kind. It is litany of the various "catch phrases" or "nicknames" are given to the genre. It says "referred to as..." Shall we lie and make up something untrue just because we are trying to adhere to guidelines that do not apply in this context? Everyone I've ever read refers to it as "60s punk"--just look on the front sleeve of the Pebbles CD's and a hundred other places. I know of no one who calls it "1960s punk"--it's "60s punk." How many sources do I need to pull out to prove it? The problem with Wikipedia is that sometimes we get so obsessed with guidelines that we forget to just inform the reader accurately. MOS:DECADEI'll indicates that two digits can be used in certain cases, such as "Gay 90s," "60s' counterculture," etc.--as long as sources to justify it. I could get some sources and make cited references to the term in later parts of the article. With all due respect, I'll defer to your judgment in this case--I don't want you to think I'm being stubborn or unkind--I just want the statement there to be accurate representation of the colloquialism used. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think with all this chaotic editing that has been going on, I recommend you take my early advice and start a small side-project like I have done. It will give others time to edit what you have added and ease your mind so you are prepared to get back to your main goal. Perhaps you can start the Bohemian Vendetta page? There is really no rush to finish the G. R. article, it's not going anywhere, so please take this advice and take a little "detour" for a day or so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank you for that kind thought you've expressed, because I've been pushing myself so hard with the G.R. thing that I'm beginning feel fatigue. You'll notice that I've started an article about the Guanga Dyns. Maybe I should finish it tomorrow as you suggested--oh yes and then Bohemian Vendetta. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I copy and paste his tutorial onto my own talk page, so that I can keep it in my files or future convenience? Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Big project: Teenage Shutdown!

I was wondering if you wanted to take part in this. I was going to create articles compiling the complete Teenage Shutdown series. The articles wouldn't be huge, but the point is to have the whole collection. There are 15 in the series so it is still a huge workload. If you were interested perhaps we could split (sorta, since it is 15) the album articles. I would do odd numbers and you even. Of course, if you are too busy I can manage on my own, though I thought it would be best to try and include you on this since there aren't many of these types of projects left (Nuggets, Pebbles, etc. are already complete).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this link should help on album names: http://www.45cat.com/45_comp_series.php?cs=Teenage+Shutdown

Yes, I'd be happy to help out. In fact I was thinking of doing something down the road on that series myself, so you read my mind. Do you think we could wait a couple of months to get started on that--that way I could finish the remaining bodies of text to the G.R. article and you could focus on some of your priorities. I'm kind of going Wiki-lite right at the moment (as you recommended), because I need to re-charge my batteries. But, in the next few days I want to next get to the Australia/New Zealand section, which is going to be a big one. I want to research the geography of those regions, so that I can arrange the bands in clusters according to city/region in the two respective countries. I then want to do the section on the far east, with G.S., although I may do the psychedelic section before that one, and, oh yes, then last the folk rock influence section, which will appear in front of the psychedelic. But, yes, why don't we do the Teenage Shutdown once we get these other things out of the way, and then I would be happy to work on it with you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I may lay down a draft of the first volume, but the project can wait. I found a friendly user who taught me how to upload album covers as well, so that should make the article look better.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested to learn how to upload the album covers. Can you explain how? I'd love to know! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well there was a link by the user on my talk page. It is a step by step process that takes only three minutes or so. The one rule is it is strictly for the purpose of the album's article, not the band. Make sure, when you access the link, to choose the second option saying you feel it is fair-use. The rest is self-explanatory. If it's a hassle, I can just do it for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I copy and paste his tutorial onto my own talk page. That way I can have in my files for convenient future reference? Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, he also had a link to a website he developed about under-appreciated bands. Has a lot of interesting information.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm really glad to know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start my draft on the Teenage Shutdown Vol. 1. I'll make sure to wait for you before I create anything official. Remember when you start Vol. 2 (then 4,6,8, etc.), it doesn't need to be huge articles, it's more for the song content than anything else.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What I was thinking is that I could do drafts of the ones I own copies of and a few more. Let me go home tonight and make a list of them--I'll let you know tomorrow. That way, I can access the liner notes. Tim Warren writes the liner notes and sometimes I take his comments with "a grain of salt." Some of his ramblings are intended to be humorous or satirical, so I'll cite only things that I'm positively sure are factual (and then try to find corroborating sources). But, we could figure out how to divvy the volumes up. I realize that you may have some of the same volumes too, so I can take that into account. But go ahead and do vol. 1. Then I'll get back to you tomorrow and we can figure out how proceed the rest--and of course, after each of us finishes each one, then we can co-edit--so it is really a collaboration. I believe that the albums and CD's are identical (unlike Back From the Grave), so that makes it a lot easier. I'm really excited about doing this! Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: On another note I found a terrific video of David Aguillar reminiscing about the Chocolate Watchband and the L.A. scene. [[4]] Check it out! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, just tell which ones you own and well will sort it from there. I want it to be as equal as possible, though there are 15 CDs. I'm kinda worried about the deletion police because I learned from another user who was responsible for creating the Pebbles series articles (or what is left of them) that some of the volumes were deleted. Makes no sense, vol. 2 was deleted but vol. 18 is still there and other odd blunders by deletionists. I just hope all the patrolling users are a little kinder, since deleting one vol. messes up the whole chronology.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We'll just do the best we can and hope that they don't delete anything. We can be vigilant about protecting the articles form deletionists. I'll get back to you tomorrow with a list of the 7 or 8 albums I'd like to draft, although if there are any of those you want to do, I'd be glad to swap any you wish. And, then of course we can edit them all together, so that they have a consistent style. Check out David Aguillar's presentation! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw the presentation, it's kinda weird seeing him older when I usually visualize him being only 20. I listened to their new album from this year, and, while Aguillar isn't what he once was, his singing is still a lot better than most others' today. By the way, if individual albums for the series is too difficult we can just have one article talking about the series itself. By the way there is another series called Cruisin' that devotes each volume to a single year with DJ commentary, "commercials", and, of course, music.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool, because I've always wondered what it must have been like to listen to AM radio in the mid-60s--from everything I've read about it, it must have been really fun. How I wish we could have those cool DJ's and mom-and-pop jingles today. So, I'll have to check Cruisin' out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I'm pretty sure you probably listened to this, but I heard this song called "Project Blue", by the Banshees that is amazing. It is their fast-paced guitar instrumental that makes the record. Give it a try if you haven't already.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I love that song! I have it on my copy of the Oh Yeah! Dunwich Records comp (CD). On my way driving here (to the coffee house where I just arrived to Wiki-edits this afternoon) it had just occurred to me that I forgot to mention that song in the G.R. article--how could I possibly have forgotten (!). So you read my mind! Let me go get a couple of good sources and then I will add mention in the article--it is a must have! I'm so glad you mentioned this! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added mention of the song in the G.R. article--I hope the sources are good enough for its mention to stay there, but I decided to throw the proverbial spaghetti at the wall anyway--in hope that it sticks. That song is such a seminal work in the history of garage/punk. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just heard it yesterday and still I am listening to it over and over. It's a shame they couldn't release anything else afterwards. There actually may be enough sources for a short article on the band, so I might write it someday soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Go for it! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I will as a side project, but if you have any additional sources from CD liner notes maybe you could write it if you want. I noticed that the Dr. Spec's Optical Illusion was enlarged from your additional sources so perhaps you can do the same here if you wanted to. I need to catch up on my Country Joe and the Fish draft tomorrow, so perhaps if your not interested I can create the Banshees article in a week or so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are the volumes of Teenage Shutdown I have on CD: Vol. 3 Things Been Bad, Vol. 4 I'm a No Count, Vol. 5 Nobody to Love, Vol. 6 I'm Down Today, Vol. 9 Teen Jangler Blowout, Vol. 10 The World Ain't Round It's Square, Vol. 13 I'm Gonna Stay. If you'd like, I could also do another one, maybe Vol. 11. However, if you have any of these and want to do them, we could swap and I could do others. So, if you'd like I could do Vol. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 13, then you could do the others--unless you want to swap any, which is OK with me.Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, to be honest, I only have the first volume. I'm a little embarrassed that I want to help write the whole series, but I only have one CD. I think it's only fair you choose which ones you want to write, so the volumes you listed are yours. Just give me the word when you want to start, I know how busy you are right now. I should have had a draft by now, but I keep getting tied down by projects that pop into my head. Speaking of which, I was reading about the Knaves and apparently they were associated with the mafia, at least they performed for them. Their song "Leave Me Alone" is highly recommended, but, unfortunately, they are one of those bands that never got much of a chance to get noticed outside their region or record a whole lot.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No need to feel embarrassed at all--you have so many great records in your collection that others would die to have! There is just no way that any one person can collect all of this stuff in one lifetime. As for me, I would say that I have only begun to tip the iceberg, and maybe that is for the best. As much as I would love to hear all of these great records before I die, I never want to get to the point where there are no more frontiers to discover. I feel like a little kid in a candy store and I want to retain that childlike fascination for the rest of my life--that is one reason I've intentionally "slowed down" my collecting habit in recent months. So, consider it a great privilege that the discovery and "un-vaulting" of those volumes in the series await you for future revelation, just as for me that Smithsonian Folkways anthology is coming down the pike. As for the Knaves' mob connections--that is interesting. I wasn't aware, but I guess many musical artists have had to "play ball" with the "big wigs" to get gigs and record arrangements. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wish I had a little more to bring to the project. By the way, I recreated the Pebbles, Volume Two page to try and save the whole series from being deleted. Some of them still need to be reworked and I feel it is important since it makes no sense to have an incomplete album series on Wikipedia. That one was the most important so far to create, but I need to look through the pages to find which ones still remain.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Pebbles Vol. Two looks a lot better now. Thanks for improving it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I went and looked at the liner notes in my copy of the Oh Yeah CD comp., and while I was not able to find anything about mob connections with the Knave, they had some other interesting info. According to the notes, the lead screamer for The Banshees later became a Catholic priest! He could hold a punk rock mass--that would be incredible. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is anything else on the Banshees you find helpful, I'd be happy to use it. I was going to write the article today, but I wanted to finish an article on the Magicians when I saw they were the only group from the original Nuggets album without an article which is unacceptable in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to put mention of the Magicians in the New York and Mid Atlantic section of the G.R. article. Check out the 1966 Documentary, "Four to Go," which appeared on the WCBS Eye on New York series (pt. 1: [[5]], pt. 2: [[6]], pt. 3 [[7]]). As for the Banshees, I'll go check the liner notes of Oh Yeah! and get more info. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think I ever properly expressed my gratitude for expanding the Dr. Spec's Optical Illusion article. It's by no means my largest article, but I think the detail is impressive for a relatively unknown band with only one single (but what a single, right?). That kind of work doesn't get much noticed except by the few people who appreciate the work these bands created. It's a shame the group isn't better recognized, but I want you to know I noticed and am thankful for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And, there is no way that I can express my gratitude for all the wonderful things you've done. I've gotten more tied-up with the G.R. article than I had expected, so I am sorry that I haven't been able to focus on more of the band articles that I had originally planned to get involved with, but thank God you've been here! I know I've said it before, but there is not a day that goes by that I do not rejoice for your dedication to these unsung heroes in music, whether they be country blues, garage, psychedelic, and so many others. Big thanks as always! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I completed my work on Country Joe and the Fish article. The article finally, I believe, reflects on their importance in the San Francisco music scene. When everyone is a little less busy we can have another review. I'm in no hurry, but I'd like your initial opinion on the article for a some feedback.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I read over briefly it and like it a lot. I can see that you put a of time and care into this--it shows in so many ways. It is thorough and well-written, and needless to say, it is a massive improvement over what was there before. I don't see much that needs to be changed--it all looks so good. This is splittin' hairs, but there are two sentences that you might wish to slightly modify: In the heading where it says "...consisted of issues concerning the counterculture...," you may wish to change to say "...addressed issues of importance to the counterculture..." That sounds more direct and powerful. In the seventh paragraph of "Electric music (1966-1968)" you may wish to slightly change where it reads: "The song met unprecedented exposure among the band's young audience after a performance...," which sounds a little iffy. But, I'm not quite sure how to find the right words to best express the idea you are trying to express. Perhaps you could try: "The song would have an unforeseen effect on the band's young audience as a result of a performance..." or something else--I'm trying to come up with the perfect phrase, but I think that even Shakespeare would get caught in a jam here. But, that's strictly "nit-pickin.'" Other than those two sentences the writing looks really tight and adroitly executed trough and through. I haven't checked through the sources etc., but I know that you are always a stickler there. Looks really nice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I just noticed a little typo where it says "fonding" rather that "founding" in the heading (I'll be the first to admit that I'm better at proofreading when I'm reading something on printed on paper rather than on a computer screen). By the way, don't worry, we all make typos now and then--I'm just grateful for the times you've tidied up some of my little typos and accidental errors. It happens to the best of us. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that this thread (and whole page) is getting rather long, so I thought I'd create a new thread and put all of the old stuff in the archive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Album Cover Uploads

Thank you for your message; I don't mind helping at all. From scanning your 'talk' page, it looks like you and I have similar tastes in music. I haven't done any major writing in Wikipedia in quite a while (though I still make small contributions regularly), so I might be a little behind the times. Uploading an image to Wikipedia is a little tricky, and it took me several tries to get the hang of it, but here is some instruction that should help you: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard . (There might be a new version of the 'upload wizard' that could make it easier than it was back when I was doing this a lot). Album covers, single covers and those kinds of things are automatically usable in Wikipedia; and of course, the images are very easy to find on the Internet (I usually use the 'images' page in Google). Don't worry about finding a copyright tag or whatever when you save the image from that search – as long as the image is of the front cover, you are 100% covered for 'fair use' no matter how you find the image. I should amend that to say that album/single covers are automatically usable for articles about that album or about that single; for some reason, you are not allowed to use an album cover to illustrate an article about the band. Then there is some language that you need to attach with the uploaded file to show the 'use rationale' for the image, and that you are making it under 'fair use'. This is a relatively recent image that I uploaded which has the attachments in it: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:StonePoneys-CD-2.jpg . If you open the file as though you were going to edit it, that will show the details on what you need there. You can then copy that over to the file that is created after you upload an image. I always used a previous upload to get that stuff; the layout, etc. has to be exact, or it doesn't work right. The uploading goes to 'Wikimedia' actually, not to Wikipedia directly, so don't let that throw you off. Good luck. Shocking Blue (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Garage Rock article. Hello, I'm Stephen Strange

Hello, I'm Stephen Strange (from the Spanish Wiki). I've readen your sandbox 1, with the new modifications. I've enjoyed the article. I think it's excellent. The inclusion of sections about the "British Connection", Continental Europe, Latin America, Asia and Australia is a very good idea. Really superb.

I knew "Los Nuggetz", the compilation of Latin American Garage and Psych. And I think it's a very enjoyable and good collection of 60's Rock'n'roll and Pop Spanish-speaking bands (and some Brazilians portuguese-speakings, of course). But I have some doubts about it as a real Garage and Psych compilation. What I'm really sure is that, despite its title, it's not a "Latin American" compilation ('cause 38 of 92 songs are sung by Spanish -European- bands), hehehehe.

I've readen the Latin America section of your article. It's a true honor for me that you've used my text for your article, really. I'm very happy.

As I said, I'm not Latin American (I'm Spaniard). I'm a real fan of Garage Rock (well... In fact I'm a true fan of Rock'n'roll, 60's sounds and the first New Wave and Punk rock from the late seventies). I discovered Garage Rock in very early 80's, just a few years after the "Garage Revival" arrived to Europe. And I fell in love with it, ehem. Forever.

In Spain, the Latin American bands from the Sixties were totally unknown during the 80's and the most of the 90's (except Uruguayan Los Mockers, because their first and only album was reissued in 1986 by an independent Spanish label). We discovered Los Saicos in the late-90's (when another Spanish label -Munster Records; a record laber specializing in Garage rock- released their complete recordings).

I want to say something about the Spanish bands you've mentioned in Continental Europe section. I love Los Bravos. I think they were a fabulous band. But I think their sound never was close to Garage rock. They were a very good 60's rock'n'roll (and psych, sometimes) band. And very successful, of course (in Spain and in the whole world). But I've got a lot of doubts about they as an example of Spanish Garage sound-a-like. Instead, I agree with the inclusion of Los Salvajes, Los Cheyenes. And I want to show you some examples of 60's Spanish bands who were much closer to the original Garage sounds:

• Micky y los Tonys (1965): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z8Wo9fRwTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCXfiXxPqQc
• Los Sírex (1965 and 1966): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPdWjxSdZRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frByylfQWGA
• Los Polares (1966): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C-9NX-FYUc
• Prou Matic (late 60's): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHyGoK7pyNk
• Los Canarios (1966 and 1967): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xUqrF_36qY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX4es4VJjbM
• Los Huracanes (1965): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Bfx6CoLjw
• Los Botines (1966): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFsMfX8Ti_U
• Los Tomcats (1966): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYSFGDAdBDw

Greetings from Spain, thanks a lot and sorry for my poor English.--Stephen Strange (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, if fact I am just overjoyed that you have expressed interest. In fact I really admired the way you lead out the discussion of Mexican bands in the Spanish garage rock article, so I have translated those wonderful words as a preamble to the Mexican bands in the English article. I like the way the Spanish garage rock article is unique and unlike any in the world--all of the other languages simply translate earlier versions of the English article--so I thought I'd return the favor and show some Spanish influence in the English article! Oh yes, you brought up Los Bravos... I agree that Los Bravos were a little more on the pop side of things--sometimes there is a thin line and its a tough call. I could remove their mention (which I might do), but some may be disappointed if their name weren't there, so I don't want to appear remiss. Americans know them by the song "Black is Black," which is more garage sounding than their other stuff. By the way, thanks for mentioning those other great bands! I will definitely give them a listen and try to find some sources and try to get them into the article. Thank you so much for introducing them to me! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I just gave those songs a spin on Youtube and they are awesome!!! Thanks for recommending those bands. I going to scout sources and see if we can get them into the article. Big thanks! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Check this one out on Youtube.[[8]] The band was from Argentina and their name was Los Bestias. They are truly primitive 60s garage punk divine! I love the way their bass drum logo looks like a play on the Beatles--it's as if they are saying "We're not bugs, we're beasts!" Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)