Talk:Eight Miles High

feminist viewpoint

Question : exactly how does the song Why support a feminist viewpoint ?

I have no idea and personally, I don't believe that it does. I don't know where this information came from and it may have been original research on behalf of an editor. I have now split the song "Why" into its own article and removed the mention of a feminist viewpoint since I can find no 3rd party references to support this claim. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'A great performance...superior...' should certainly be changed as it doesn't deal with facts concering the song. I, for one, prefer the more atmospheric version on Younger Than Yesterday and I know more people who think that so while 'superior' is evidently not fitting for wikipedia any claims to its quality should be kept out of it.

Why is the Roxy Music version of the song not a cover ? It's credited to Clarke McGuinn Crosby on the LP and obviously the same song. See June 1 edit. Bububu.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stranger than known?

Quote: ...as illustrated by the opening couplet; "Eight miles high, and when you touch down, you'll find that it's stranger than known."

Having seen this repeated on countless lrics websites and checked, the lyric is ... strange and unknown... . That makes sense whereas "... stranger than known..." doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.84.52 (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The lyric is definitely "stanger than known" as confirmed on Roger McGuinn's own blog (here) and Johnny Rogan's Timeless Flight Revisited. Even Gene Clark himself confirmed that the line is "stranger than known" in his 1978 interview with CHUM radio in Toronto, as detailed on page 82 of John Einarson's Mr. Tambourine Man: The Life and Legacy of the Byrds' Gene Clark. If any more evidence is needed you can clearly hear Clark and his band sing "stranger than known" in the performance found here and McGuinn likewise clearly sings "stranger than known" here. I agree that the line doesn't seem to make a whole lot of linear sense but regardless of where you've "checked", the line as featured in the article is definitely correct. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I defer to your points. I hadn't read that piece on McGuinn's blog but he appears to imply that the lyrics are neither a metaphor for, nor directly influenced by, psychedelic drugs. Hmmm, right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.3.160 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha...yeah, I know what you mean about the song supposedly not being drug related. There does seem to be some disagreement amongst the band themselves on this point, since both Clark and Crosby have come out and said that yes, it was, at least in part, about drugs (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article). I have to say that in my opinion McGuinn has been practicing a sort of historical revisionism where this song is concerned; stating that he was more involved in the writing of the lyrics than was ever accepted while Clark was alive and also downplaying Clark's contribution in the genesis of the song. The trouble is, that like a lot of events in the 1960s, it all happened so long ago that memories are becoming distorted or coloured by hindsight which makes getting a definitive and wholly accurate version of events tricky sometimes. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Banning by the BBC

I have removed all mentions of the song having been banned by the BBC from the article because in fact, this record was not banned by the BBC. The single was banned by many radio stations in the USA but not by the BBC. I know that The Times' article "The music the BBC banned" (found here) says that the song was banned but this is an error and you will not find any official BBC sources corroborating this erroneous information. In addition, several notable books on The Byrds, including Johnny Rogan's Timeless Flight Revisited (second edition p.162) and Christopher Hjort's So You Want to Be a Rock 'n' Roll Star (p.94) specifically state that the record was not banned by the BBC. Furthermore, a contemporary statement from a BBC spokesman published in the May 14, 1966 edition of Melody Maker makes plain that the BBC do not intend to ban the record. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Folk rock?

An editor insists on labeling this as folk rock. Yes, The Byrds were folk rock pioneers and their other singles and first two LPs were folk rock. No arguments there. However, no source that I have found has labeled "Eight Miles High" as folk rock and instead focus on how this was a shift away from folk rock (as the allmusic article linked indicates). We should only be listing the main genres of any given song, based on published sources, not every editor's personal opinion on what the song actually is. freshacconci talktalk 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Very much agreed. The song is widely regarded as psychedelic rock first and foremost and also as raga rock by a number of reliable sources, as outlined in the article and supported by a number of inline references. I've spent a lot of time over the years reading about The Byrds and their music, and I have never seen "Eight Miles High" described as folk rock. As you rightly point out, the song represents the moment when the band shifted away from folk rock. Having said that, if a reliable third party reference could be found, clearly designating the song as folk rock, I would be happy to consider adding that genre to the infobox. However, without wanting to sound smug, I think that the chances of finding such a source are slim. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The terms folk rock, psychedelic rock, and raga rock are essentially meaningless, and both of you are ridiculous. These are labels invented by and thrown about by minor rock critics to disguise their virtually complete ignorance of music. TheScotch (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately though, Wikipedia is not concerned with your superior-sounding, but wildly ill-informed opinion. ...and let's make no mistake, your above statement is entirely your own subjective opinion, which is irrelevant within the context of editing Wikipedia. But thanks for labeling me and other editors "ridiculous", that's really a great way to carry yourself on Wikipedia. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policies on civility, personal attacks and the guidelines about wiki etiquette. Your above comment does not assume good faith and I will report further personal attacks -- regardless of whether they are directed towards me or any other editor. There is simply no excuse for acting in this way on Wikipedia. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager that he doesn't talk like that in real life. It's much easier to attack other people hiding behind a computer. freshacconci talktalk 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Media References

I have no references for this... "Eight Miles High" most likely influenced "Just Dropped In" writen by Mickey Newbury. The song says, "I tripped on a cloud and fell eight miles high." I according to the wiki for each article, "Eight Miles High" was written first. Fenderbenderfc (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Brenton M. Fender

A sentence alluding to the fact that "Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)" by The First Edition name checked the title of "Eight Miles High" in its lyrics was present in the article for at least a year (that I know about) with a "citation needed" tag challenging it. It was actually me that finally removed it from the article (with this edit) because I couldn't find a decent supporting ref and also because I felt that it came under the banner of "anecdotes, unrelated cultural influences, and other peripheral content" which are discouraged by the guidelines set out at WP:MUSTARD. However, it's probably no more trivial than Bruce Springsteen having played a guitar solo influenced by "Eight Miles High" on his song "Life Itself", and that's currently in the article. So, if you can find a reliable ref supporting this info about the Mickey Newbury song, please do add it to the relevant "Cover versions and media references" section. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

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

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:1213025

--CactusBot (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Drug-related songs

This article is currently in the Drug-related songs category. However, since "both [Gene] Clark and [David] Crosby admitted that the song was at least partly inspired by their own drug use", wouldn't including the article in the category seem a bit much? Thanks, Bulldog ^{edit my talk page da contribs go rando} 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, personally I don't think so. If the song is "party inspired" by drug use then it's partly a drug-related song and therefore fits in the aforementioned category. If band members had admitted that it wasn't drug-related at all, then that would be a different story. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

Please explain the latest reversion of edits; I expected to see this in the edit summary. The meaning of the term "small faces" seems relevant, especially since the article describes how the song may be seen as an account of the Byrds' visit to London. Secondly, the final paragraph of the history section clearly disrupts the chronology of the article, since it addresses events following the release of the single, while the subsequent section begins by detailing the release itself. For this reason, I find that the information about Clark's departure would be more appropriately placed at the top, so as to not distrub the flow of the article. 213.67.82.100 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the paragraph detailing Clark's departure from The Byrds currently serves as something of a post-script to the "History" sub-section. I'm cool with including a mention of this in the article lead as well, because you're probably right that it is an important enough fact for the lead. However, as Freshacconci points out in his edit summary, the paragraph that you have a problem with serves to make plain that Clark was the main songwriter in the band at this time, that "Eight Miles High" was his last major composition with the band and that The Byrds suffered commercially after his departure. These are all things that a reader should be made aware of in order to have a greater understanding of the song, as seen within the context of the group's history. But I do take your point about "article flow", so perhaps it might be better to relocate this paragraph to a new, post-release sub-section. Hmmmm...

Secondly, I'm well aware that a "face" was mod slang for a stylish member of that sub-culture, but your adding of this info implies that this fact has some bearing on the use of the phrase "small faces" in the lyrics of "Eight Miles High". Ian McLagan does not infer this at all, and it may be that Crosby or Clark were completely unaware of the significance of the word "faces" in the Small Faces’ band name. Simply put, this is your "inference" or "deduction" and as such, it borders on original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. As it stands, pointing out the connotations of the word "face" within 1960s mod culture is, at best, misleading, and at worst, pretty much irrelevant in an article about the song "Eight Miles High". Hope that explains things for you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and also your edits. I still have an issue, though, with this formulation: "Following the release of 'Eight Miles High' and Clark's departure, The Byrds never again managed to place a single in the Billboard Top 20." While it may be true that The Byrds suffered commercially after the departure of Gene Clark, I don't see any evidence presented for a causal relationship here. Obviously, Gene Clark didn't write the two Top 20 singles the Byrds had produced previously ("Mr. Tambourine Man," "Turn! Turn! Turn"); in fact, he had little to do with either of them. Therefore, I don't see how you can connect The Byrds' commercial decline to his departure. Yes, he did play a major role on both 1965 albums, but you seem to define their commercial success with reference to their performance on the singles charts. And this leads me to another aspect, why talk about the Top 20 at all? Can you really speak of "Eight Miles High," which reached #14 on the charts, in the same breath as number one hits like "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Turn! Turn! Turn!"? Isn't there quite an important difference between them as hits; can you really group them together? What about the three Top 40 hits that followed, where do they fit into this "narrative of decline" that the article implicitly posits? It seems a little arbitrary; it's as if the "Turn! Turn! Turn!" article would state that The Byrds would never again manage to score a number one hit when they began to release their own material on A-sides. It's true, but there's not necessarily a causal relationship. So, that's why I feel it would be better - and more neutral - to simply state that "Eight Miles High" was their last Top 20 single, without inferring anything from this fact (unless it's sourced, of course - but the current source seems to a neutral account).

As for the "small faces" issue, if the concern is OR, I'll try to see if anyone has mentioned the meaning of the term in relation to the song. Thanks again. 213.67.82.100 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the fact that The Byrds' career took a commercial downturn (if not a creative one) after Clark's departure had anything to do with his leaving. That's just how you've chosen to interpret it. The article merely points out the truth, which is that Clark was the band's principle songwriter at the time, "Eight Miles High" was his last major composition with the band and that The Byrds never had a Top 20 hit after he left. Nowhere is there a suggestion that any of these facts are necessarily interrelated.

Like I say though, I feel it is important to mention that "Eight Miles High" was the band's last proper hit single because it provides a greater understanding of the song, as seen within the context of the group's history. Likewise, mentioning its U.S. and UK chart position, and rightly describing it as an American Top 20 hit, is important to do because it's likely that some readers will be interested in the record's chart performance. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's apparently also the way that you have chosen to interpret it, since you write above that the paragraph "serves to make plain . . . that The Byrds suffered commercially after [Gene Clark's] departure." But let's examine the formulation in the article more closely: "Following the release of 'Eight Miles High' and Clark's departure, The Byrds never again managed to place a single in the Billboard Top 20." Now, this is a rather dramatic formulation, almost hyperbolic: "never again managed," suggesting great effort and a wish to regain something lost, which reinforces the narrative of decline that the article implicitly advances. More importantly, the juxtaposition in the sentence between Clark's departure and The Byrds' failure to reach the Top 20 again suggests a causal relationship. The suggestion, put simply, is in the juxtaposition. Nowhere in the main article on The Byrds is this suggestion to be found, and I don't understand why it should be present here. So, I would suggest simply removing "and Clark's departure" from the sentence in question. I would also rephrase the part about "never again managed" to something that suggests less of a dramatic shift. It would have been different, of course, if the band would never have had any hit single again, but they did after all enjoy a series of Top 40 hits after that - some of them quite well-known. (As a side note: how do you define a "proper hit single"? This sounds quite subjective. Besides, in the United States at least, Top 40 is a more common category or "cut-off point" than Top 20 - think of "Top 40 radio," for example.) Actually, I would delete that would whole sentence, since the reader now already knows at this point that the song was Clark's last before his departure. Moreover, the chart performance of the single has already been mentioned in the "Release and legacy section," so it's quite superfluous.

Sorry for going on about this for so long! I certainly didn't imagine that my two edits would generate so much discussion. It seemed and still seems quite uncontroversial to me. Thanks. 213.67.82.100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Byrds did suffer commercially after Clark's departure, but whether that departure was in any way connected to that commercial decline is open to debate. Neither I, nor the article, are making any kind of connection there. Just supplying the facts for the reader to interpret as they see fit. However, the band were clearly desperate to recapture past glories...I'm thinking particularly of the disappointment that the band, and David Crosby in particular, felt when the "Lady Friend" single didn't re-establish them as chart contenders. I don't believe the way in which the relevant paragraph is constructed is especially hyperbolic. Regardless, I maintain that the band never again reaching the Top 20 singles chart following the release of "Eight Miles High" is noteworthy and should be made explicit. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you first mention a trend of commercial decline and then the fact of Clark's departure, the reader is inevitably going to connect the former with the latter. Now, if you don't want readers to make that connection, you could easily rephrase it by saying that "after the release of 'Eight Miles High,' The Byrds never had another U.S. Top 20 hit." Why mention Clark at all? It has no function, other than to intimate a connection. You final line makes sense, and the formulation there should be incorporated into the article, I think. 213.67.82.100 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, I think that you need to mention Clark's departure in that last sentence because that's what the paragraph is essentially concerned with. If you remove it, it messes up the syntax and paragraph flow. It's like that last sentence is just tacked onto the end. The best I can suggest is switching the order of things mentioned, so that it reads "Following Clark's departure and the release of "Eight Miles High", The Byrds never again managed to place a single in the Billboard Top 20". Other than that, I'm at a loss as to how to appease you without detrimental effect to the paragraph. Perhaps another editor can weigh in on this, because I don't have a whole lot more to say on the matter to be honest. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there must be a way to combine good syntax and paragraph flow with revision. But I'm still wondering why it is important to mention that "Eight Miles High" was their last Top 20 hit in the context of Clark's departure. As I've mentioned, it inevitably suggests a connection, and this seems to be its only function. I appreciate the word order suggestion; however, it doesn't really change the juxtapositional implication. But since we've reached an impasse here, perhaps we could instead turn to the formulation of "never again managed to place"? If this could be phrased in a way that suggests less of dramatic change, then the problem with the sentence would be somewhat alleviated. The simplest way would be to formulate it as "The Byrds never had another Billboard Top 20 single," or a variant thereof. Another way would be to add to the end of that line: "although they would enjoy a series of Top 40 hits" or "; after this point, they would only reach the Top 40." Thanks for your time. 213.67.82.100 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Byrds, "Eight Miles High," and the Gavin Report: A Re-Assessment

In an article recently published in Popular Musicology Online, Issue 4 (www.popular-musicology-online.com)- "The Byrds, "Eight Miles High," the Gavin Report,and Media Censorship of Alleged 'Drug Songs' in 1966: An Assessment"- the author has thoroughly discredited the accepted historical view that the Gavin Report was responsible for the national chart shortcomings of the Byrds' innovative 1966 single, "Eight Miles High." By thoroughly analyzing the local music surveys- an exercise previously ignored by writers- he has demonstrated that "Eight Miles High" suffered commercially from its extended length (3:35), unorthodox jazz-like arrangements, dense sound, inefficient promotion by Columbia Records, and weak sales: the Gavin Report and alleged airplay bans were non-factors. Furthermore, the evidence allowed this writer to advance a new theory, namely, that the huge chart success of Paul Revere & the Raiders' "Kicks"- the ultimate anti-drug song- caused Columbia to switch its marketing priorities away from the faltering Byrds' record.

I strongly suggest that the writers/editors responsible for this essay/topic on Wikipedia read this article, and at least mention it as an alternative viewpoint. While one may disagree with the 'new theory' advanced on this subject, I think the author has conclusively demonstrated that the hidebound, unsubstantiated view that "Eight Miles High" was commercially derailed by the Gavin Report and exaggerated airplay bans has been suspect and invalid, as it is unsupported by the available evidence. At the least, that portion of the essay should be edited to reflect this new conclusion based on the latest research. After forty-six years, the truth needs to be told. The naive belief propagated by Roger McGuinn, Derek Taylor, and the group's management- blindly repeated by historians- that "Eight Miles High" ever had a serious shot at reaching Number One on the U.S. charts was a pipedream- notwithstanding its groudbreaking greatness. Likewise, the existing view that this episode subsequently doomed the Byrds commercially has been extremely questionable. Incidentally, Popular Musicology Online is a peer-refereed scholarly journal.

Frank60s (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip off! I'll have a look at that article if I can, and see what I can add to the Wikipedia page in relation to it. Having said that, I would point out that the Wikipedia article only says that the radio ban "contributed" to the single's failure to reach the Billboard Top 10, which is undoubtedly true -- it's hard to have a hit single when no-one hears the song on the radio. Still, the single didn't do as well as expected in the UK either, where there was no radio ban at all, so obviously that wasn't the only factor in the song's lack of commercial success.

It's also worth noting that most journalists and music historians attribute The Byrds' downturn in commercial fortunes from early 1966 onwards to Gene Clark's departure, rather than the chart failure of "Eight Miles High" specifically. Nonetheless, I'll have a read of that article and see what I can add over the next week or so. Please bear in mind that the PMO article is just one opinion and needs to be presented as such, against the general critical/historical consensus, in order to maintain an unbiased encyclopedic article. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your prompt response to my mention of the PMO article. It certainly is worth checking out, as it brings a fresh perpective to this subject: namely, a thorough examination of how the song fared commercially on Top 40 U.S. radio. The author clearly refutes the erroneous notion that there even was a major "radio ban" of the record, which received varying airplay in eight of the top ten major markets for which local survey information has survived. Despite receiving reasonable airplay in many markets, the single failed to convert this airplay into vital sales, thus becoming a 'turntable hit.' From a sample of 30 radio stations, the author found that "Eight Miles High" reached the Top Ten in only 7 of them (23 percent). Furthermore, this record failed to reach the Top Five in any of the sample's twenty-three markets. Another aspect of this discussion that has been largely ignored was the suspect marketing campaign implemented by Columbia Records on behalf of the single;instead, historians have simplistically blamed the Gavin Report and the mythical, exaggerated airplay prohibitions in three markets for the record's disappointing chart showing. Looking forward to your comments after you've had a chance to read the PMO article.

Frank60s (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As you digest that PMO article- it is a lengthly one- here are a few more relevant points that I'd like to make after re-reading it and checking some of the most recent references cited in it:

- No one else previously has ever thoroughly examined the local music surveys and the Billboard regional retail sales charts, as they related to the national charting of "Eight Miles High." The only major market where this record made the Top Ten was in LA (#9 consensus among the three Top 40 stations), where it clearly had peaked prior to the Gavin Report's un-recommending it from airplay on 29 April 1966. Incidentally, that date was almost seven weeks after the single had been released- ample time for it to have made its mark on the charts.

- Again, there was no so-called "nationwide radio ban": that was a myth propagated by Derek Taylor (the Byrds' publicist), Roger McGuinn, and the Byrds' management. The latter group, in its letter of "Demand For Correction" sent to the Gavin Report on 20 May 1966, made the preposterous and totally undocumented claim that "...radio stations throughout the United States have discontinued playing... 'Eight Miles High.'" (Johnny Rogan, The Byrds. Timeless Flight Revisited. London: Rogan House, 2008, pg.161). The available local music survey evidence clearly indicated otherwise.

- "Eight Miles High" definitely had been decelerating on the national charts prior to the end of April 1966. This was certainly no surprise, as the PMO article makes clear: despite its musical greatness, the record had failed to make a strong (Top Five) showing in the Byrds' home base of LA; achieved mediocre results in the pivotal Cleveland market; disappointed in Chicago, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh; 'stiffed' in New York and St. Louis, and was ignored by pioneering station WKNR in Detroit, the nation's 5th-largest center. The bottom line was that this groundbreaking song lacked strong commercial appeal by virtue of its complexity and unique sound, and also suffered from uncoordinated, inefficient promotion by CBS/Columbia Records. Nonetheless, contemporaries and most historians have taken the convenient way out and simplistically blamed the Gavin Report for the single's relatively disappointing commercial results, instead of facing the cold, hard facts.

Frank60s (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now added a paragraph briefly covering Teehan's findings and conclusions. I don't think we need to go into too much detail because a) Teehan's article can be found via the inline references that I've used if anyone wants to read it in full, and b) because, as convincing as Teehan's argument/evidence is, it is still something of a fringe theory and needs to be balanced against the more widely accepted version of events. I have actually used quite a lot of your own wording, as posted here on this talk page, in the paragraph dealing with Teehan’s findings. I hope that you will be satisfied with my edits, but if there is anything glaringly wrong or misleading in what I've written, I would appreciate it if you would bring it to my attention, so that I may correct it. Many thanks for bringing Teehan's interesting article to my attention. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent job on your part with the edits: adding that paragraph summarizing the PMO article's main thrust was a good idea. The only minor error I noticed was the Gavin Report date of April 26, 1966; it was actually April 29, 1966. So the text in the added paragraph should read "...was not suggested by the Gavin Report until April 29, 1966, almost seven weeks...."

Otherwise, I don't know if you think it's advisable to edit the second paragarph of the Introduction, and further on (Release section?), where the phrase "nationwide radio ban" is used. The PMO article effectively discredits that myth, as your newly-added paragraph points out. I would respectfully suggest the following edit under the Introduction, second paragraph, as well as under the Release section, where similar wording is used:

"The song allegedly was subject to a U.S. radio ban almost two months after its release, following charges published in the broadcasting trade journal the Gavin Report regarding perceived drug connotations in its lyrics." The key word in my proposed edit is allegedly.

Glad to help out in a minor way. The PMO article struck me as a well-researched, compelling piece that brought a fresh perspective to this topic. Frank60s (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This just occurred to me, to add to my comments above:

While I agree with you that there is no need to go into detail concerning the PMO article, I think that the following salient points could be added to your summation: local survey performance, and the fact that the song's length (3:35) presented a strong challenge to some radio programmers, such as those at WKNR in Detroit, who declined to add it to their play list probably because it was "too long for our format clock." (note: the same station jumped on another "banned" record, Dylan's "Rainy Day Woman #12 & 35," which had a running time of just 2:26). Detroit was the nation's 5th-largest market.

So, here's a suggested addition to your added paragraph:

The author's research revealed that "Eight Miles High" failed to reach the Top Five in any of his sample of 23 markets, and most telling, among the thirty radio stations included within his sample, it reached the Top Ten on only seven of them (23 per cent). In addition, the song's extended length (3:35) hindered its programming potential, especially in Detroit, the nation's 5th-largest market. In essence, the available evidence led this writer to conclude that "Eight Miles High" was unable to convert strong initial airplay into retail sales- the prime driver of the national charts- thus making it into a 'turntable hit.'

Well, that came out longer than I planned, but maybe there are a few nuggets you might be able to incorporate into your additional paragraph. No problem either way. My point is to add a little substantive data (read: hard evidence) to your PMO summation paragraph to convey more of the persuasive 'bite' that article delivered. I realize you can only say so much, and at some point, just have to draw the line. Frank60s (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've tinkered with the article intro a bit and also with the specific "U.S. radio ban" sub-section to incorrporate some of your above sugestions. Incidentally, I've removed all mention of a "nationwide radio ban" because upon checking the listed source, I see that Johnny Rogan only actually lists a handful of states where the record was actually banned. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another superb job on your part with the edits: I would say you nailed it.

Your fine article now presents a balanced and accurate outlook on this topic, based on the latest in-depth survey research. The PMO essay makes it clear that the notion of a "nationwide radio ban" was a patented myth, first propagated by Derek Taylor and especially the Byrds' management, and subsequently repeated without question by later historians.

Frank60s (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Genre: The Consideration of Jazz rock or Jazz fusion

Many critics have cited the song as being the Byrds main venture into "jazz infused rock", with McGuinn himself highlighting the jazz qualities and strong Coltrane influences. In his 1968 Pop Chronicles interview, McGuinn stated that the song was more of a tribute to Coltrane, than its raga tendencies.

SgtPetsounds (talk) 19:30, 06 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eight Miles High/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Status (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

First review

Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

::I have concerns with the thoroughness of this GA review and am unsure why the review wasn't put "on hold" for seven days, as outlined at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, rather than just "failed" outright. This is the process that really should have been followed as per GA guidelines, since the faults with this article are relatively minor. Furthermore, I would ask why the proper GA review template found at Template:GAList has not been used? Now to address the specific points below... References 1 Uncategorized redirect and 1 dead link I will attempt to source a new inline reference in the next few days to replace this dead one. Have removed this sentence because it's not a widely accepted "fact" and also I couldn't find a replacement reference. References should not be used in the lead. The genres should be stated somewhere in the article. This is incorrect. Nowhere on the lead section (manual of style) page or the GA criteria page does it say this. Whether or not to have references in the lead section is entirely down to the discretion of editors contributing to a page. Indeed, every single article I have ever had a hand in getting up to GA standard has had references in the lead section. Please could you explain why you have cited this as a problem when it is, in fact, a non issue? Excuse me if i'm stalking here, but as a reviewer of the drive i've got into this by job. Actually, the guideline does recomend to avoid the use of references on the lead unless some of the contents on the lead are highly controversial. SO it is a requirement that references on the lead that are already covered on the article body to be removed from the former. Remember that the lead is a summary of the article content, ans thus, all information (with exceptions) on the lead must be on the article body. If otherwise, the article fails 1a. Regards. —Hahc21 02:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry Hahc21, but this is simply untrue. The introduction to the lead section MOS states that leads should "be carefully sourced as appropriate". The guideline goes on to say that "there is not an exception to citation requirements specific to leads" and also suggest that "the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." So, it is quite wrong for you to say that "the guideline does recomend to avoid the use of references." Furthermore, I personally like to see references included in the lead because it's the only bit of an article that a lot of people will ever read. Having clear references showing the source of certain statements in the lead is both helpful and discourages well-intentioned—but ultimately mistaken—editing, particularly of contentious information. Mostly all of the references are missing a publisher. Authors are also missing. This is simply incorrect. The vast majority of references, both online and offline, have a publisher and an author listed. As far as I can see, there is only one inline reference not citing a publisher (the Fifth Dimension CD liner notes one) and only the online references lacking an author. I will atempt to rectify this problem in the next few days. Allmusic, for example, is missing both a publisher and an author. The publisher being Rovi Corporation and the author being the one who wrote the review. Ah, I see. I had the publisher in those refs listed as "Allmusic". I will change that and add an author too. Done. IMDB is a user edited website, it is not to be used for a source. I did not know this. I will attempt to source alternative supporting refs over the next few days. Checking the Wikipedia:Citing IMDb page, I see that using that website's soundtrack listings for references is not considered an inappropriate use, only "disputed". So, it would seem that this is down to your discretion or perhaps consensus between an editor and reviewer. Let me know your thoughts. Prose Music sample should be somewhere in the article, not stuck on the infobox. This is entirely a matter of choice and personal taste, not actually a problem for a GA review per se. I am more than happy to relocate the audio sample if you require it, but nowhere does it specify that this is a reason to fail a GA review. I have done this and added a caption explaining what the audio sample shows. Some sentences are a bit too long and should be chopped into two. Could you provide examples? Part of your job as GA reviewer should be to provide solutions to problems, as outlined here. The article is lacking several important sections: critical reception and chart performance section, as well as a charts table. Again, this is incorrect. The "Influence and reception" section clearly provides details of both contemporary critical reception and modern reception. Chart performance is detailed in both the "Release and legacy" section and the article lead. A charts table is not a GA requirement and, in this particular case, would be overkill, since "Eight Miles High" only charted in two countries: America and the UK. The information in the article is good, but this article is not complete. At this time, I am sorry, but I am going to have to fail it. If you would like me to address any specific concerns, please leave me a message on my talk page and I would be happy to help. I would like to say that I am utterly dismayed that this article has been failed outright, when none of the problems or concerns with its content (even those that you are clearly wrong about) are listed amongst the 6 "quick fail" criteria at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I am not impressed with your grasp of the GA review process and I'm not convinced that you have even read the article very closely. I would urge you to reconsider failing this article and think about reviewing it again, once I have had time to address the few legitimate points you've raised. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I clearly had an episode of Editing Under the Influence while looking over this article. How could I actually missing all of that? I deeply apologize for all of this, and will continue on to review the article. Statυs (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Second attempt

Again, I apologize for the complete lapse of judgement earlier. I will thoroughly go through the article and state any legitimate issues that there may be.

Thank you, Status...I appreciate it. Please allow me a day or two to rectify the issues with the inline refs, the dead link and the IMDB citations. I'll relocate the audio sample too and add a descriptive caption for it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You can have as much time as you require. Statυs (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

* Seeing as how the third paragraph is only one sentence long, I do not see a reason why it should be on its own. I've now added a second sentence, outlining and reinforcing the song's "psychedelic rock" credentials (see your point below). My feeling is that this now constitutes a short third paragraph and shouldn't be added to the end of the second, since it covers an entirely different subject. What do you think? I have no access to the source, so I can not confirm this or not, but it is stated that the song "was influential in developing the musical styles of psychedelic rock, raga rock and psychedelic pop". How exactly does that mean that those are the genres of the song? From what I understand from how it was written, the song helped develop the genres, which would apply they didn't exist prior to the release of the song. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're quite right that the genres didn't really exist prior to the release of the song, but "Eight Miles High" provided the first fully formed template for these genres. So, it was influential on those genres because it was the first record that could be accurately labeled as psychedelic rock, raga rock or psychedelic pop and therefore it is an example of those genres. To strike a Beatles analogy, Sgt Pepper was influential on establishing the template for rock concept albums, but it is also widely regarded as being the first rock concept album, so it is clearly a concept album itself, even though such a thing didn't really exist prior to its release. I have actually added some extra information to the "influence and reception" sub-section, outlining that "Eight Miles High" is widely regarded as the first genuine example of psychedelic pop music.

Composition

Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

* Can you specify how the lyrics are "obscure"? Impresionistic is a better adjectives that "obscure", but since this is touched upon in the "influence and reception" section, I have decided to remove the word "obscure". Colons should be used before stating the line of the song. OK, done in some instances, although clearly the use of colons would be grammatically incorrect in some of the sentences. Colons are used to introduce an idea, concept or (in this case) quotation. However, if the quotation falls in the middle of a sentence, a comma would perhaps be better. Clark then showed the song to McGuinn and Crosby, with the former suggesting that they arrange it to incorporate the influence of John Coltrane. --> Clark then showed the song to McGuinn and Crosby, with the former suggesting that the song be arranged to incorporate the influence of John Coltrane. Noted and done. Since Clark's death, however, McGuinn has contended that it was he who conceived the initial idea of writing a song about an airplane ride and that he and Crosby both contributed lyrics to Clark's unfinished draft. --> After Clark's death I think "since" works better grammatically, because in this context the word means "continuously or intermittently from", which makes more sense given that we're talking about McGuinn's version of events having changed following Clark's death. The word "after" in this context would mean "following that time", which is less accurate and specific. John Coltrane --> Coltrane, as you've already mentioned his name Done.

One question I have is about the Husker Due infobox. My feeling is that where it is it looks untidy, since it encroaches on the list of references at the foot of the article. But I'm at a loss of how to remedy this (short of deleting it). I can't reposition it below The Byrds infobox because it will encroach on the audio sample caption and if I move it up slightly from where it is now, it'll be part of the Byrds article, which it clearly shouldn't be. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I say to just delete it. If there isn't enough information on the cover of the song in the first place to cover the whole infobox (which I assume is what you are talking about) then I don't see a reason for it to be there. Statυs (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done!

Recording

• The master recording of "Eight Miles High" was committed to tape on January 24 and 25, 1966, at Columbia Studios in Hollywood, with record producer Allen Stanton guiding the band through the recording process. --> What exactly does "committed to tape" refer to? I'm not entirely familiar with the process of recording music back then, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't entirely make sense to me. What I gather is, the song was basically just recorded on those dates?

"commited to tape" just means recorded onto magnetic, multi-track audio tape in the manner that all music was in the 1960s. If it's not clear, I should probably just change it to "recorded". The only reason I used the phrase "commited to tape" was because I'd already used the word "recording" earlier in the same sentence. I'll change it!

• In a 1966 promotional interview, which was added to the expanded CD reissue of the Fifth Dimension album, Crosby said that the song's ending made him "feel like a plane landing." --> Unsourced. Maybe cite the expanded re-issue of Fifth Dimension as the source?

Does it really need a source? It's one of the few sentences in the artcle lacking a reference and is hardly controversial. I could source the CD I suppose, or else just delete that sentence. I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway. What do you think?

I guess it's alright, since it does specify where said information comes from.

• original RCA version --> RCA really isn't a version, it was where the song was recorded. "Original version" works fine.

Done.

U.S. radio ban

• "Eight Miles High" was issued on March 14, 1966 in the U.S. and May 29, 1966 in the UK, reaching #14 on the Billboard Hot 100, and #24 on the UK Singles Chart. --> I assume you mean issued to radio, correct? Should specify that. Additionally, you are supposed to spell out the word and not use "#". I think a "respectively" should also be added to the end of the sentence.

No, I mean issued to the general public. These are the dates that the single was released. I'll change "issued" for "released" for clarity. As for the #'s, yeah...I new that, but forgot. Done.

• Any numbers less than ten should be spelled out. Make sure of this throughout the article and using "number" instead of the actual number sign.

Done.

References

• There are some publishers missing. For example, ref 4 the work should be Allmusic, while the publisher is Rovi Corporation. Amazon.com is the publisher of Internet Movie Database.

ref 4 is lacking the "work" parameter...as are all the refs used in this article. I'll add these were needed.

Verdict

• All the issues that were addressed have been fixed. I am confident in passing the article. Great work! Statυs (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Great work, Status. Thank you for that and thank you for giving the article a second chance during the review. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I take it you'll add the Good Article icon to the top of the page and also list it at wikiproject songs at a later time, yes? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

I just went through the article and although I am not familiar with the Review format would like to say that I found it to be a very complete article, lots of references, relevant pictures and an informative and engaging text. Definitely a good article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First Psychedelic Song?

Does Jann Wenner or whoever actually say that "Eight Miles High" is the first psychedelic song? I would think he would know better. (The link to Rolling Stone doesn't point to anything anymore). The Wikipedia article on psychedelic rock music mentions that the 13th Floor Elevators advertised themselves as a psychedelic rock band in late 1965, and there are plenty of other earlier examples of psych or proto-psych also given in the article. Shocking Blue (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Annoyingly, that Rolling Stone article seems to have vanished, but "Eight Miles High" is regularly cited as being the first fully-fledged psychedelic rock song. I have reverted your edit and replaced the Rolling Stone article with another two inline references. As for the 13th Floor Elevators, they may've been advertising themselves as "psychedelic" in 1965 (the word was certainly in use within youth culture by then), but they didn't release a psychedelic record until well into 1966. "Eight Miles High", on the other hand, was written in November 1965 and first recorded in December 1965. Also, proto-psychedlia isn't the same as full on psychedelic rock or psychedelic pop. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the dates that you give do not match what is in the article, where the recording date is given as January 1966 and the release date as March 1966, with the latter date obviously being the most important. Perhaps you could add "fully-fledged" or put in something about "mainstream", without obviously rewriting whatever the sources have. I am a big fan of "Eight Miles High" myself, but I am a big garage rock/psychedelic rock fan and could cite a dozen what would be IMHO full-blown psychedelic rock songs that predate EMH. But if your have the sources, this is fine with me. Shocking Blue (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the article again; the first recording of "Eight Miles High" was committed to tape in December 1965. However, the version that was released as a single and included on the Fifth Dimension album (and which the infobox therefore refers to) was cut in January 1966.

As for earlier psychedelic songs, well...like you, I can point to earlier songs that are close to being fully psychedelic, but personally I happen to agree that "Eight Miles High" was the first psychedelic pop or rock song. But regardless of my or your opinion on such things, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and there are plenty of reliable sources out there stating that "Eight Miles High" was the first psychedelic rock song. Quoting from the article itself for a moment, I think Domenic Priore gets it right when he says, "prior to 'Eight Miles High,' there were no pop records with incessant, hypnotic basslines juxtaposed by droning, trance-induced improvisational guitar." However, I will add the the words "bona fide" to the sentence in the lead because the Eric V. D, Luft book I've used as a reference does actually use that qualifier. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Drug-related songs reviewed

Seems to me that it's one of the early psychodelic drugs songs, nevertheless what band sources have told in the early years, and later. I guess the story of this fucked flight is a fake as well as the influence of Ravi Shankar who was detected and developped by the Beatles. Check the dates, the Byrds are too early. And check the personal background of Gene Clark. You'll find that he was a man who could write this genial text and song. No, no source but conviction due to early convictions, press releases, early reactions, early impressions. Of course, everyone can rewrite history some years later what have been done. Don't you agree? -wolf

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eight Miles High. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129095635/http://www.don-mclean.com/viewsong.asp?id=89 to http://www.don-mclean.com/viewsong.asp?id=89

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) 10:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eight Miles High. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504212934/http://ebni.com/byrds/lp5d.html to http://ebni.com/byrds/lp5d.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016015557/http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/001633.html to http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/001633.html

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) 11:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eight Miles High. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730153904/http://ebni.com/byrds/newsbwidc5.html to http://ebni.com/byrds/newsbwidc5.html

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) 00:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)