Talk:Procol Harum

Bach Tonality

The original author of this statement should clarify it. In the broadest sense, western music uses the Bach tonal scale, but the author must have meant something narrower. Obviously using an organ in classical style is not sufficient to support the statement. If there are other musicological reasons for the statement, there should be some clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkolak (talk • contribs) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous post is correct: the issue here is not Bach-like tonality, which is common more or less to all pop and rock music (but not jazz). The point is that the chord and bass sequence of the organ intro to "A Whiter Shade of Pale" has a stark resemblance to Bach's "Air on the G String". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catito63 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Star

I've removed the detail about the star "named" after B.J. Wilson. As explained here, star names like this are fraudulent, and aren't recognised by anyone except the company you pay for the name. In particular, no astronomers use these names, whereas the asteroid named after Procol Harum would be recognised by the astronomical community.Sonitus 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

DNA's favourite song?

Could somebody please find out if Douglas Adams favourite song really was "Grand Hotel"? An earlier version of this page said it was "A Whiter Shade of Pale", and I remember reading somewhere that it was the Beatles "Drive my Car". If we can't find out I suggest we remove this "fact". StormCloud 13:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As nobody wanted to correct this statement I've removed it. I have, however, added a reference to the comment about "Grand Hotel" inspiring the "Restaurant at the end of the Universe" StormCloud 13:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Who owned the cat?

I've questioned the assertion that the group was named after Keith's Cat (I remember reading somewhere that it was a neighbour's cat). Can any body find an article that says one way or another? StormCloud 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Following this up, according to Claes Johansen's book "Procol Harum - Beyond the Pale" (ISBN 0-946917-28-4) "He [Guy Stephens] suggested that they name themselves after a Burmese cat belonging to a friend of his". I've amended the text and referenced the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StormCloud (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Procol Harum and Latin

the correct translation for procol harum is
before col a thing (if harum nominative singular)
before col o thing(if harum is vocative singular)
before col the thing(if harum is accusative singular)
for the translation to be "far away" the word has to be Procul His, with his in the ablative neuter plural
--Czar 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
source: Jenny's First Year Latin(ISBN - 0-205-07859-1) and Words.exe vers.1.97FC by William Whitaker

try procul harunc, or hic instead of harunc.

--Procul Harunc 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

nonsenses ;-)
-- Saint Proculus 82.208.2.200 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Proculus (sync. Proclus; Procolo in Italian) is a Latin name. The cat was probably named after a saint of this name, and after Harun (Aaron) ar-Rashid. The mystery has been solved.
-- Proculus Verginius Consul 82.208.2.200 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not inspired by Oceanus Procellarum, then? Moletrouser (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, harum is "fragrant" in Malay, and perhaps some related Indo- languages (Hindi? Sanskrit? Pali?). I could well imagine this creeping into incense/yoga/meditation/philosophy/mystic/hippie circles. and then CAT NAMES.

Just a thought. If I saw it alone w/o "Procol" up front, I'd be asking the owner if they were into any of those "Eastern" things. 209.172.25.157 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just read a reference to Oceanus Procellarum and that hit me, too-did the band take its name from the name of the lunar feature. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)theBaron0530

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

As is sadly the case with so many entries for pop bands and their albums, this one has so many non-NPOV statements in it I'm not sure where to begin. I suggest an extensive rewrite. It isn't necessary to insert passages such as the description of Grabham as "a worthy successor to Trower." What does that mean? Was he able to play all Trower's parts identically or something? Even the description of the Paramounts' demise ("...the band fell apart") is over the line. Say "disbanded." It conveys the same information without burdening the article with yet more opinion. B. Polhemus (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult situation. Worthy successor means his musicianship was sufficient to not degrade the quality of the band. If the band fell apart, it would be the right word choice. It is another case where references and citations prevent this kind of speculation.Jkolak (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AWSOP Authorship lawsuit

The Authorship lawsuit is discussed on 3 pages; this page, the main A_Whiter_Shade_of_Pale page and the Matthew Fisher; we should collate the information on a single page. My preference is the A Whiter Shade Of Pale page, but that is just a my preference. Does anybody else have any strong feeling on where it should be documented?

I'm going to post this message on all three talk pages to ask for comments, but please can we put them all together at Talk:A_Whiter_Shade_of_Pale StormCloud (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discography

Is there any reason we've duplicated is Discography section from another page? Stormcloud (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Their best-known recording is their 1967 single"

Recording? I would suggest "song" or "hit" instead.. Agreed? Kvsh5 (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Member section - Member timeline

Personally I feel that this page could do with some form of member section or timeline seeing as the only one available is the one featured in the infobox, and this is not very informative. I'd do one myself, but I'd like to hear the opinions of others first. Any thoughts? Burbridge92 (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Spinoff?

Do you suppose Boko Haram is a spinoff of Procul Harum? See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24011745

Sca (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dont understand what the two items has to do with each other and I really don't understand why they have "Not to be confused with ... " links to each other. Will remove in both articles unless someone disagree. Sijambo (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not so much that anyone would consider Boko Haram to be a "spinoff" of Procol Harum. The issue is that these two names sound vaguely similar, and a reader trying to find information on one of these entities could conceivably get mixed up and type the wrong name (especially if they have never seen the names in print and have only heard them). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who confuses a English rock band who made one of the best known records ever with a 21st C African fundamentalist religious group is beyond the help of Wikipedia. The disambiguation is a joke - sorry to be blunt! --Pfold (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Boko Haram & Procol Harum.

Hardy F---in' Har.

72.82.168.27 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pinewoods

"The Paramounts were signed to EMI UK for their releases; until one day before Procol Harum linked with EMI UK again, they were called the Pinewoods."

I could not work out what this sentence was saying, so I looked up the Pinewoods on other sites and it seems that whatever it is saying is wrong - "the Pinewoods" was the original name of Procul Harum, not some continuation of the Paramounts. And it doesn't look like the Pinewoods/Procul Harum were on EMI. I don't know enough about Procul Harum to rewrite it, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.26.234 (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Album

"Their second album, A Salty Dog (1969),"

But the discography lists it as their third album (and was the third LP released in the USA). 2601:8:AB80:AA6:19F2:CED4:704C:46BC (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that; I have fixed it now. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Gus Dudgeon's cat revealed as an impostor?

Re: "Guy Stevens, their original manager, named the band after Gus Dudgeon's Burmese cat". Not according to Ian Marchant who claims that it was Bob Rowberry "... who owned the cat after which Procol Harum was named." Corroborrated here by the great man himself. Gary Brooker, that is. -- Evermore2 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There is some pretty extensive research on the unofficial Procol Harum web site about the original cat (https://www.procolharum.com/young_cat-claude1.htm), which seems to fairly conclusively prove that the cat belonged to the wife or girlfriend of a drug dealer - definitely not Gus Dudgeon. I don't know if an unofficial web site qualifies as a reliable source, but since the claim about Dudgeon has been challenged by multiple sources, I would suggest changing this into something less definite (e.g. "an acquaintance's Burmese cat"). Jah77 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox "primary official website" is by its own admission not official

Note on procolharum.com's home page that it's "run by fans, for fans ... to share facts and opinions ... . It is an independent website, without ... ties to ... the band itself", whilst it is featured where {{Infobox musical artist}} accepts and expects "The single web address for the act's primary official website." I hardly think we can continue to promote a fan site that by its own admission has no ties to the band as being "official" (or even reliable if used as a source). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly not official, but note that the band have allowed the use of the band name in the domain name without challenge for the last 20 odd years, so it is sanctioned by the band, but without their editorial control. But an infobox can't cope with such subtleties and there certainly is no "official" band site, so I agree this one shouldn't be in the infobox.

As for reliability, most of the "factual" pages on procolharum.com cite third-party sources or come from first-hand interviews, so it's no different in terms of status than newspaper journalism (indeed much more reliable than, say, the Daily Mail). Stuff coming directly from a band web site would, after all, be WP:SPS. --Pfold (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not being prosecuted shouldn't be interpreted as "sanctioned". Not taking action against is not support. But anyway, yep; so we'll remove it? I wasn't too worried about the reliability; I just wrote the thought as it happened :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unclear Info

"The Paramounts were signed to EMI UK for their releases; until one day before Procol Harum linked with EMI UK again, they were called The Pinewoods."

I think I get what is being conveyed here, but it is quite clumsy. Is this it? "The Paramounts were signed to EMI UK for their releases. They changed their name to The Pinewoods after loosing/leaving/whatever EMI and considered signing with Island Records. Another name change followed to Procol Harum who signed with EMI UK."

I would encourage someone, perhaps the original editor, with clearer knowledge of this to add some clarity. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Agreed, this paragraph makes no sense. algocu (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly very muddled, and it seems to be very doubtful. The Paramounts split up in October 1966. The new 1967 band was called, very briefly, The Pinewoods, according to the Halle Programme note. However, according to the webmaster at Beyond The Pale, Keith Reid has denied they were ever called the Pinewoods. Since Pinewood is where Ray Royer was born, it seems to me very likely that the whole Pinewoods thing is just the result of confusion. It's not clear who wrote the Halle notes either. The whole paragraph is in any case unsourced. --Pfold (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Burmese cat

Bob Rowberry confirmed the cat story on BBC Radio 4's Saturday Live on 22 February 2020: [1]. There are details at this website. But there is no mention of Gus Dudgeon. Rather it seems the cat belonged to a Mrs Liz Coombs who shared a flat with Rowberry in Belsize Square. So where did Dudgeon's name come from? Not from Claes Johansen's 2000 book Beyond the Pale which says just "some friend of a former co-manager". 86.189.225.68 (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Plural band name

I think the opening sentence should be "Procol Harum (/ˈproʊkəl ˈhɑːrəm/) are an English rock band formed in 1967...", as this is in line with the tag , which has been in place for nearly nine years. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I see it was changed here, by an anon IP one-edit editor, geolocating to Salt Lake City, with no explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a recognised difference between British and US styles. We use British style in this article - so, "are" not "is". There's also a need to be internally consistent within the article. The very next sentence starts with "Their best-known recording..." - not "Its...". Etc., etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

End of the group?

I guess we can't say yet per WP:CRYSTAL, but I guess with Gary Brooker's death, is this the end of the group? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but there's now an inconsistency between this article, which says the group is no longer active, and List of Procol Harum members which says it's still ongoing. I think it's too soon to expect any confirmation about this from the surviving members. MFlet1 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Early lineup chronology

The article on A Whiter Shade of Pale currently states that the released version of the song was recorded prior to Bobby Harrison joining the band, this being the reason for Bill Eyden's presence on the recording, whereas this article gives the impression that Harrison had joined the band prior to the recording. So, when exactly did he join the band and why did Eyden end up playing on the released version? Jah77 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)