Talk:Alex Chilton

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

Untitled[edit]

Could we redirect the "God" wiki to this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.242.193.22 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice I can't view the photo when on a Macintosh in Internet Explorer. I can view it in Firefox though on a Mac. No problems with Windows browsers and this page. Bebop 04:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Big Star was "slick, sterile..."?[edit]

Hmmm. Interesting perspective there. In the early 1970s, I'd say the O'Jays were slick, the Carpenters were sterile, and Big Star was neither. But hey, this is wikipedia, not Allmusic.com. I shouldn't be surprised. Chilton evidently has a daughter who was in touch with his fans when Katrina caused many to worry about Chilton's safety. No mention of her here. <--(unsigned comment posted by 24.225.95.58)

I haven't read the article in a long time other than to glance just now at the first paragraph and see the birthdate was wrong, and I corrected it; I guess I'll look through it again. As to the comment about "slick, sterile", I found the relevant sentence. It was trying to say he was moving toward a different aesthetic he pursued in the late 1970s and beyond as the punk movement started, which seemed to influence his work starting with Cramps and Panther Burns productions at the end of the 1970s, punk having partly been a reaction against multilayered, sometimes heavily overdubbed pop recording standards of the type Chris Bell (whose work I quite like) favored. This was not intended to say "Big Star" or Chilton's post-Big Star solo punky pop in the mid 1970s that included overdubbed atmospherics were sterile and slick -- it was more intended to refer to a change to a rawer "one take" recording aesthetic and experimenting in a new direction with self expression, and since the sentence did not make this clear, I have corrected it. Both styles of recording can result in fine music and good productions; Chilton, a producer himself, is known to be a proponent of good production: he liked the multilayered and overdubbed Beach Boys and early Big Star style as much as he liked the recording styles he later moved to, so it would be inappropriate for me to have implied one style was in some way better than the other with regard to his attitude. Thanks for pointing this out. And people should not be afraid to correct a mistake in the article. Also, the recent Big Star album from last year reflects much in common with his 1980s solo style approach, so thanks for pointing out implications the "slick and sterile" sentence had which needed correcting.
As for his daughter, Wikipedia articles have a standard of not being primary research reporting gossip and rumors, but are supposed to report what has been documented previously in established media, magazines, newspapers, books. If you want to write a story about his daughter and get it published in the New York Times and later point us to it, we will be glad to mention it here in this story but we can't just go do our own interviews in this particular venue or report what someone claimed in a yahoo group even if it might be true: Chilton needs to go on record himself about it first. As for wikipedia not being allmusic.com, they do not report on his daughter, and he had other family members as well that we haven't listed, including siblings and parents. – Bebop 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About moving "critics" section I created over to Further Reading citations[edit]

All artists I know of get pans and raves. Even the best artists do, including national artists from other parts of the U.S. that I've been a fan of for the past 15 years who sometimes have had good albums raved about in some places end up complained about in other sources. There is no reason to summarize Chilton's life in a final paragraph about critics who should have their work pointed out in their own bios instead of their own paragraph here. So I moved these critic references, which I had previously helped add to, over to a Further Reading citations section. I had previously helped create the "critics" section when I added additional research, citations and subheads after someone had pulled out the only disparaging comment in a long, positive liner notes essay and placed it in this article (though that was not the thrust of the Hogg liner notes nor those of the second liner notes writer, Rick Clark, in the same album's notes), along with a sentence by Christgau that was unclear out of context it was from a review praising him and jokingly referred to irrelevant trivia about dishwashing.

It's not NPOV to single an artist out for a redundant section in his bio that is not provided to other artists at wikipedia, all of whom have albums with "divided" opinons by critics. So now there is a Further Reading section, which can have additional citation entries added.

This Wikipedia article does not rave about Chilton, has plenty of criticism mentioned, and there is no reason to end the story as though his life is summed up by randomly chosen, out-of-context statements by critics who all like some, but not all of his work, as with other artists; the article is already a fair overview of his career and not intended to be a review of the critics' careers. There are plenty of critics who think positively of his work as well, just as with any artist; all albums get raves and pans. In fact, a number of critics point to his work producing The Cramps as quite important, but people who focus on Big Star as all he did worth knowing about do not have NPOV on the subject of Chilton. This artist bio is already much more neutral than most and did not need the extra paragraph alluding to four writers when that's what references sections are for. (In the Big Star article I mentioned a couple of source names in passing as proof of something that another editor was confused on; names can be useful for proof but not needed here beyond Further Reading). — Bebop 02:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have restored this. I think it is totally legitimate (by the way, it was not my writing). In general things like this belong in articles about artists. If others lack it, the failing is there, not here. And these are hardly "randmoly chosen" critics: Gordon and Christgau probably come closer to being household words than Chilton himself. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
I meant randomly chosen quotations, sorry for my awkward phrasing. Please see my detailed comments in this page's History tab entry at 16:36, 14 May 2005 (says 20:36 when I'm not logged in). I have removed the longer explanation for sake of space but it answers your above concerns. Below is a shorter summary. I put a lot of consideration into the edit you are concerned about and did a lot of research and came to the conclusion it was wrong to have it in there; I initiated most of the paragraph at issue as well. I don't like taking up the whole page, so please see the History tab. The article edit was not something I did without care and thought. And I have tried to make sure to incorporate the point someone initially wanted to see conveyed regarding the issue of mixed reviews (though this was mostly already in the article). Certainly I also kept the citations and separated them from others for emphasis in Further Reading. Bebop 20:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary -- Examples of where the article already makes it clear he's not universally praised without the additional paragraph being needed:

  • "often-criticized album" — Like Flies on Sherbert
  • "poorly received" — Live in London
  • "not appreciated by those critics who thought his 1980s solo work languid or lounge-like" — 1980s material
  • "garnering mixed reviews" — solo albums into the 2000s

The above examples show there are sufficient references in the article to the fact he, like most, has received mixed reviews, actually over-emphasizing it (as I erred on the side of being negative instead of positive) since most of his albums also received positive reviews including by Christgau, just as is the case with every artist, without additionally tacking another paragraph at the end hammering home once more some randomly chosen quotations and falsely implying the writers mentioned are famous for these quotes by setting the section off dramatically. Enough is enough; since we have noted his split of opinion already, citing where to read more in "Further Reading" is sufficient without additionally beginning a "split of opinion" paragraph tacked at the end. Part of editing is knowing what to remove that is excess; that paragraph, largely researched and written by me, was redundant (like my comments here). How many times does the article need to repeat there's a split of opinion, something true of all artist's reviews; the paragraph was merely repetitive of prior info. — Bebop 11:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

guitarwork vs. guitar work[edit]

"guitar work" is the more commonly used terminology compared to "guitarwork". As evidence, I cite the following: Google search hits: ("guitarwork") = 22,100 hits ("guitar work") = 677,000 hits

Dictionary.com result for "guitarwork" yeilds no result.

This is largely a trivial point since readers will understand either phrasing, but I do think that we should strive to use the more common phrasings where possible. I am reverting this back to the more common usage. Tobycat 19:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, I see that the original edit I made was not changed after all. No need to revert.Tobycat 19:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion — I wasn't changing your edit at all; I included it and tried to indicate that by saying "added guitar work". I don't change most edits, but I do attend to items related to proper grammar, redundant comments that do not add substance, fact checking, skewed emphasis, fairness, npov concerns, and research citations -- I especially go over sentences I have added or mistakes I have previously made with a fine tooth comb. I usually try to incorporate contributions of others in some way even if it's not something I would have done myself otherwise; when I do change or remove some contribution by another, I will usually still incorporate any genuine contribution somewhere else in a story, such that the story is improved because of the person's contribution. (I had that happen in another story just today; I first thought it was a vandal, then realized it was just a sloppy but mostly genuine contribution, so I incorporated the part of it that was correct. And in the Chilton story, I made sure to keep a Further Reading section and make the mixed reviews aspect clear as a bell due to someone's interest in this aspect.) — Bebop 20:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mutilated page[edit]

why isnt there one of those boxes where it has how old he is, his genres, eye color, finger length? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

title vandalism[edit]

"WTC was an inside job"- wow someone needs to grow a sense of maturity. perhaps editing should be locked on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killamator (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my best to fix this problem myself, but this became a severe tangle, I need the aid of an administrator.--F-22 RaptörAces High♠ 04:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ezeu (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participation with Ray Davies in 2010?[edit]

Did Alex Chilton appear on the Ray Davies album of duets, See My Friends (recorded in early 2010 but not released until November 2010)? Alex Chilton is listed as Davies duet partner on the song, Til the End of the Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraynak (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old References[edit]

Some "helpful" editor deleted these from the article, instead of working on converting them to inline citations. For myself, and any others that would like to work on that, I have copied them here. Many are dead links, and several are not reliable sources, but here they all are, as they were when they were removed from the article -- Foetusized (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance[edit]

I wonder what we do when a source attributes something to someone (in this case, his widow) and the widow says she was misquoted? In particular, she says "My quote was taken out of context by the media and parroted endlessly which is how this matter of health insurance wound up on the wikipedia entry." This would seem to me to cast doubt on the entire source, and perhaps the health insurance thing just doesn't belong at all, since it otherwise has no support. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if she could somehow publish the correct facts, either in the local or music press, or on a reliable website somewhere - then we could just put it in and use that as a reference. It bugs me when we have incorrect but apparently reliable sources that Wikipedia is obliged to support, when people directly connected are upset by it. I've seen this happen before, sadly, and it was only resolved when the subject's mother went to the press with the truth. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case, we don't have to publish a "fact" at all; all we have is one entertainment reporter making a claim about a basically irrelevant factoid that is denied by the source of the factoid. There's no reason to mention the anecdote about his insurance or lack thereof. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that we have no reason to believe that the factoid is not true, apart from the editor who says it isn't. We cannot verify that this user is Chilton's wife, and we do have to do so. I don't agree that the would-be fact is irrelevant - in fact if it were true, it would be quite relevant. If an apparently reliable source says it's true, we need an equally reliable source to counter it, and enable us to remove it. We can't remove a sourced statement on the say-so of one editor. In this case, it's unfortunate, but that's how Wikipedia works. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can; we add and remove sourced statements all the time. It's called "editing"; just because a piece of information is sourced does not mean it's appropriate for the article. We certainly can't add information based upon the say-so of one user, but that's a different matter entirely. We don't need reliable sources to make negative editorial judgements; we need our collective intelligence as editors. Anyway, keeping her name out of it and blaming it on ascribing it to the newspaper does seem like a good compromise. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the article as it stands, but I disagree that removing sourced statements is something that happens all the time. People don't add sourced info just for someone else to decide that the article is better without it. I could remove all kinds of sourced info that I don't like the look of, but that would be wrong. Leaving the accuracy of the statement to one side, I find the idea that this particular fact (or non-fact) might be irrelevant is very odd. If it were true and Chilton's lack of insurance had a direct impact on whether he visited the doctor or not a week before his death, it seems mighty relevant to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"if it were true" AND his "lack of insurance had a direct impact" AND his failure to visit the doctor is said by a reliable source to have contributed to his death, yeah. Regarding sourced information: people add sourced information all the time to articles. That's how we end up with trivia sections. "So and so was mentioned in one episode of Lost", stuff like that. There's a certain "so what" factor to a lot of the more juvenile additions. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove it. I already thought that before Lauralex turned up saying it was misinformation. Someone removed it once before, but it was put back. I think it's not an essential statement to include in the article, and it only invites speculation about the implications—not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. I've boldly removed the whole sentence: it's quite enough to say he was taken to hospital after complaining of health problems; no need to spell out the details. PL290 (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, trivia sections have nothing to do with it; that's a non-sequitur. Secondly, independent of the statement's importance to the article, I assume the source was deemed reliable before Lauralex said it wasn't true - there was no reason to doubt a journalistic source claiming to quote the subject's wife. Again, I am not saying Lauralex isn't who she says she is - I'm sure she's genuine. But generally, random editors claiming to be related to the subject are hardly rare. Changing an article on a relative's say-so is bad form per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I don't want to change the article particularly, because the statement is weak and there's enough doubt over it. But my point is concerning the principle - I've experienced trouble at Bon Scott, Jeremy Spencer and particularly Phil Lynott with family members adding and removing info and amazingly, some editors never really understood the problem with that. In Lynott's case, the family member / editor had just been kept out of a family secret... Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alex Chilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alex Chilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alex Chilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

I removed a section "Unreferenced" tag because the section was referenced. This article has been assessed as B-class and one of the six criteria is: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. This means valid tagging would be grounds for removal of material or article reassessment.
Under the "Discography" section, the "Albums" subsection has links so arguably not needing sourcing, but from the "Singles and EPs" to the "Appeared on" subsections there is a lot of unsourced material.
  • In lieu of tagging and possible assessment and demotion I thought I would inquire of article regulars and those more familiar with the subject if this could be looked at.
Also, content in the "External links" section is governed not only by the External links guidelines, ELPOINTS #3, LINKSTOAVOID #1, and WP:ELMIN, but the policy on "link farming. I removed excessive linking, for a possible discussion if some can be incorporated into the article, or a couple is relevant for inclusion, and placed them below:
The above listed policies and guidelines are not just for B-class articles but for any on Wikipedia and unless the "rules" are changed need to be observed. Notifying listed WikiProjects --- Otr500 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Chilton&oldid=1206888613"