Talk:The Lovin' Spoonful

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

Untitled[edit]

Growing up in the New York City area at the time, the group's name may have been a double entendre to some, but those references would be hard to detect in the lyrics or public behavior of the Lovin' Spoonful musicians. This made it easier to obtain parental permission to see them perform live in the Village than to see other musical acts in the same years with names suggesting psychedelic experience. This was smart marketing. I do hope the group's entry in Wikipedia is expanded, and might answer, for example, why Buddha Records/Kama Sutra had such perfectly abyssmal studio sound recording and production for such a capable group of musicians? The CD sound quality is no better than the vinyl - and that sounded muddy, at best. Surely their musical contemporaries noticed and said something? Crusaderrabbits (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So true... you can listen to the great album Hums of... and hear distortion all over the place. I read somewhere that a lot of their master tapes were lost too.Airproofing (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misc old comments[edit]

I was listening to Dr. Demento, I have recorded a show where he covered a number of songs written about coffee and had commented about the son Missippi John Hurt song that he played where John repeats "By the Loovin Spoo-onnfu". I moved the reference toward the top so people would know the origins of the band name..


All of my dears friends and fans of Lovin Spoonful, are you forgot the great solo named "Lonely"? This music is the reason of my interest to play harmonica a long time a go.

Oh, yes! Another excellent song! The main article should be edited so that a complete chronology of all of the Lovin' Spoonful's songs (and not just their albums) are accurately described here.

...but I learned...[edit]

Way back in high school, in history of music class, I'd swear we learned that Lovin' Spoonful was a reference to the amount of ejaculate from an average male orgasm.

I couldn't find this exact info on a quick net search, but from the Story about The Lovin' Spoonful page[1] I found the following: "The name Lovin' Spoonful' came from a line in Mississippi John Hurt's song 'Coffee Blues' and had a sexual reference rather than a drug connection, as many believed at the time."

While not definitive, it does lend support to the theory...

65.101.19.199 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Thanks, Janman[reply]

This is covered in the reference book The Encyclopedia of the Blues so I will add it. "Spoonful" in blues has been interpreted with both sex and drug overtones though the Hurt version was more oriented towards sex. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

summer in the city[edit]

Can't help, I think "Summer in the City" is by the Spencer Davis Group?

They may have done a live version of it, but "(Hot Town) Summer in the City" is definitely Lovin' Spoonful material. The bluesy riffs, on the other hand, that Spencer Davis Group is famous for, might have given birth to a highly similar song but without more information, it's hard to speculate which one it might be. It probably wouldn't have the mix with traffic noise and honking that the Lovin' Spoonful version has.

How about a list of 45s in contrast to albums?[edit]

The main article could be improved if the discography were edited to list the songs that came out on A-sides or B-sides of 45s, and which came out in LPs or albums.

On the other hand, some record companies released so many combinations of songs on 45s, it might be unnecessarily laborious having to type that much information in. Is this the case for the Lovin' Spoonful?

The Daydream (song) Wikilink[edit]

Seems inaccurate. Is it the same song? Anchoress 05:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations & References[edit]

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone get a picture of them in their heyday please? It would be better than another tired comeback tour...--MacRusgail (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money[edit]

The song "Money" as recorded by the Lovin' Spoonful does not feature typewriter percussion. Rather, it is an entirely different song entitled "Money" by Pink Floyd that contains the sound of a typewriter.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandybeach2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be in error. I am not familiar with the tune by the Lovin' Spoonful, but Roger Waters describes in some detail how the sounds were derived for their song Money - from the Eagle Rock DVD release on the DSOTM album, a part of their Classic Album series. It does not include a typewriter. The sound you are referencing is the cash register sound he used along with the sound of tearing a piece of paper and throwing coins into a large mixing bowl his then wife used for her pottery work.THX1136 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nashville Cats" was not a crossover country hit for TLS[edit]

This article contains the undocumented claim, "They even had a crossover hit, as "Nashville Cats", a number eight pop hit, reached the country charts." But the article about the album Hums of the Lovin' Spoonful contains the following quote from John Sebastian stating that it was not:

Principal songwriter John Sebastian said of "Nashville Cats" — which made No. 8 on the Billboard Hot 100 — "We thought our version would cross over to the country market. It never did. So we're always kind, gee, well I guess that tells us what we are and what we aren't." Flatt & Scruggs took "Nashville Cats" to No. 54 on the country charts as a single.

That quotation is attributed to the liner notes of the album's 2003 re-release, while the contradictory claim in this article is unsubstantiated. Therefore I am deleting the sentence from this article which claims that the song was a crossover hit for The Lovin' Spoonful.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spoonful as Narcs[edit]

I am surprised that no one has included something on the controversy in 1966± where the bandmembers were naively put in the position of acting as narcs. It was a really big deal at the time, and the band got a bad rap over it. If I ever get around to it, I will include something. Shocking Blue (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but be 100% certain you also add a reliable reference if you do place any text about such a thing, else, sadly, true or not, your work there would be necessarily reverted, per WP:MOS. I recall some such rumor about Gregg Allman from my older friends in 1973. SIGH. People will always be people, no matter how talented or high profile. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was actually Cher who narced on Gregg Allman actually – ostenibly to help him get off drugs. I don't know enough about that one to really say though. Shocking Blue (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now a reference showing that about Gregg Allman would certainly be interesting. Do share on his biography if you find a solid reference! I was for a time lead editor on the Derek Trucks article, which, at times, bled into other musicians' bios, though lately, I keep getting distracted cleaning up after other editors. The biggest reason I dislike handling controversial info here, since, all it would take for a pissed off musician with a good lawyer and giant balance in the bank, would be to sue the Wikipedia for libel and much worse. A solid reminder needs to be sent to all editors who think is OK to enter any text, especially based on hearsay or less violating WP:OR without citing such text (esp. those who are biographies of living persons) !! All or a substantial amount of what we've worked so hard to create here (assuming we all have the same goal of providing a free online encyclopedia) could be lost in one fell swoop. Keeps my butt in line as much as I'm aware now. It's why I prefer that all editors register. It protects them better than an IP address would, less vandalism when they are identifiable, and makes it easier to see if we are all on the same page. (No pun intended! Well, maybe). Giggle. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moe Bishop on Vice.com has done a good job of exploring this controversy, with references. The Ralph Gleason article already referenced in the Wiki article is the main source. I have been reading about this in rock books since the 1970s and the Ralph Gleason article is always the main source and most reliable. I added a little more and cited the Moe Bishop source. I don't think it's going to be a problem at this point since this is ancient history and Yanovsky is dead for years so no BLP issue. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a separate discography page[edit]

Needs a separate discography article, as this is just a long list of his work on the page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely believed[edit]

by folks such as myself that Gary Chester played on at least Do You Believe In Magic (song), thus making this sentence

"The Lovin' Spoonful played all the instruments on their records, with the exceptions of the orchestral instruments heard on their soundtrack album You're a Big Boy Now and some later singles."

null and void. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a suitable reliable source to cite that information, please feel free to do the edit. If there is no reliable source to cite a "citation needed" tag would be more appropriate. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fact widely known by drummer historians but here is one source, [[2]], but do a google search and get a dozen more if you don't like this one. Carptrash (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to encourage you to do the edit to the article to include this information if you feel it is worthy. No worries either way (I have no vested interest in the article other than that it be accurate and complete). Thanks for your input!THX1136 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing your point. I need very little encouragement. I took that sentence out months ago. Carptrash (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Lovin' Spoonful. 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) 13:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

Countless 'cultural' uses of the term 'Lovin' Spoonful' have ensued since the rock band used the name. How many food rescue organizations and restaurants have been called 'Lovin' Spoonful'? MaynardClark (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The" or "the" or...[edit]

So, is the band officially "The Lovin' Spoonful", "the Lovin' Spoonful", or just the "Lovin' Spoonful"? Someone just went through Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind? and changed all the references to the band to "the Lovin' Spoonful", which seems like the least likely candidate. From album covers I can find, "The Lovin' Spoonful" seems correct. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:THEMUSIC. Tkbrett (✉) 00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change spelling of name[edit]

How can I or somebody correct the spelling of a name on the lovin' spoonful wiki page? Under past members: David Jayco should be David Jayko Thank you, Roxane Rclbuss (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rclbuss. Every online source I can find says "Jayco". Where is your evidence for the other spelling. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am 60 years old and I've known Dave since I was 14. The only presence he has on the Internet is Facebook under Dave Jayko and it shows him as a keyboardist. Dave is 61 in December he'll be 62 years old. Rclbuss (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folkin' Around review of Club 47 appearance[edit]

I am on the lookout for a review of the Lovin' Spoonful's June 7–8, 1965, appearance at Club 47 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was written by a seventeen-year-old Paul Williams, who went on to found Crawdaddy! magazine in February 1966. In a 2002 book (p. 120) collecting Crawdaddy pieces, Williams says that, "[In 1965, Larry] McCombs got me started as a music writer by publishing (in his magazine Folkin' Around) my reviews of the Lovin' Spoonful at Club 47 ..."

In his 2002 book, Turn! Turn! Turn!, Richie Unterberger interviewed Williams, who reflected on the Spoonful's Club 47 appearance (pp. 163–164), but there are no quotations from the original '65 review. Looking at WorldCat, Folkin' Around does not seem to have been digitized by any universities. A listing at Bowling Green State University indicates that the magazine had only seven issues as Folkin' Around (January to August 1965), and that by its eighth issue in October 1965 it was re-titled Sounds. Tkbrett (✉) 16:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Butler[edit]

is Joe Butler still touring with the Spoonful? It said he retired from the band in the touring members section. Their is no source though. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? Unless John Sebastian shows up, the touring iteration receives no coverage from reliable sources, so there is nothing to go off of. I see that Joe Butler's daughter, Yancy, wrote on Twitter that her dad "wasn't touring/working with The Lovin' Spoonful" in March 2023. I have no idea if he is back to playing with them though. Tkbrett (✉) 12:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I havent seen Butler touring with them in any recent YouTube videos. I saw one video from 2023. It wasent a cover band because it had Steve Boone playing Bass with them. I also saw on the bands website that their is a picture of their current line up. Butler is nowhere in site. I can see Boone in it however. The latest I can find of him working with the band is the performance from Leap day of 2020 where John Sebastian did show up. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PrincessJoey2024, I had no idea the touring iteration had their own website. Without any sort of announcement though, it feels a bit like original research to say he is retired though. Tkbrett (✉) 01:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it does, and your welcome. Lets keep him in the members section until a reliable third party source reports if Butler is retired or not. I have been trying to find a source for Butlers retirement or not, I have also been trying to find sources for Butlers own page and I cant find much. Joey (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lovin' Spoonful/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to Tkbrett and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for tackling this large article, Ganesha811. I really appreciate it. Tkbrett (✉) 22:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Made a few tweaks, but on the whole very well-written, no major issues. Pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Extensive notes, but not actually an issue. External links are typical and appropriate. Lead is a good length, Discography & Membership are typical for band articles. Pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • No unreferenced passages. Pass.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • What's the case for PleaseKillMe.com being a reliable source?
  • WP:BLOGS writes: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." In this case, Richie Unterberger has written two books on the history of the genre of folk rock (Turn! Turn! Turn! (2002) and Eight Miles High (2003), both of which were published by Backbeat Books. That publisher was owned by UBM Technology Group until Hal Leonard bought it in 2006, then Rowman & Littlefield acquired it in 2018. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that Unterberger has written more about the Lovin' Spoonful and folk rock more broadly than any other reliable source. Now, the other part of WP:BLOGS is that one should be cautious about using the source since "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". I have used that citation in three places. In the case of the first, Boone's autobiography already covers it, so the citation is not needed there. The next instance is for the quote box; I originally tried using quotations from Boone's autobiography there, but his writing there is quite dull. I have not found another source where he lays out the situation so clearly, which is why I used that quotation in particular, and why I think it warrants inclusion. If I had a better quotation from another source, I would have used it there. Finally, in the third case, it is used in note 5 to talk about the potential release of a Live at the Night Owl album; Boone never discusses this possibility in his book, and this interview is the only time I have seen it mentioned anywhere, which is why I think it again warrants inclusion.
  • What's the case for the Fiction Liberation Front being a reliable source?
  • This is the blog of an author, Lewis Shiner, who has been regularly published by independent publishing houses. Applying the same standard as above, I have only used this citation in five places for quotations from John Sebastian where I had no better examples.
  • Why does cite #3 have the phrase "met the night the Beatles debuted on Ed Sullivan" - seems oddly placed.
  • It indicates which parts of the citation apply to each part of the sentence. In this case, Unterberger and Courrier specify that Sebastian and Yanovsky met on the night the Beatles debuted on Ed Sullivan, and Miles specifies that that night was February 9, 1964. I like this style of citation because it makes it exactly clear where all the information is coming from, rather than just listing three books at the end of the sentence and letting the reader figure out which part is from which book. This style is used at the FA for Sgt. Pepper and I have used it at several of my own FAs (e.g. The Kinks' 1965 US tour, "Village Green" and "I've Just Seen a Face").
  • Flanagan / Wilentz seems like it should be in the 'Liner notes' subsection
  • Fixed.
  • Cite #61 (Boone & Moss) - same as #3, what's with the parenthetical "(waiting, Cafe Bizarre)" - this may be a citation style I'm simply unfamiliar with, just let me know.
  • Addressed above.
  • Ditto for #242, Barone 2022, "diminished preorders" etc
  • Addressed above.
  • The link for 'Picador' in the Paul Howard source goes to the bullfighting term, not a publisher.
  • Fixed.
  • Issues addressed/discussed, pass. The Shiner source still doesn't thrill me since it is not an area where he has any notable expertise or publishing history, but for the information used, reasonable enough. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Pass, no issues.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Earwig picks up some box quotes and song/album titles, but no actual issues.
  • Hold for manual spot check.
  • Checked 6 randomly chosen cites where I can get access - no issues apparent.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Not able to find anything else of significance.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • No major trims found during prose review - provides a good summary of the band's whole career. Pass.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • A number of citations to autobiographies and memoirs from people directly involved - worth double-checking to make sure their opinions are separated from factual content and/or are backed up by more independent sources. I will spot check a few where I can but I presume you have more ready access to some of these sources.
  • This proved particularly challenging in the writing of this article. In that PleaseKillMe interview, Unterberger mentions that, other than Boone's autobiography, there is no single book dedicated to the group. He adds: "I don't think it was [Boone's] intention, but I think it might serve as the best source for information about the group." Unterberger's books are useful, but they cover the history of folk rock in general, so that means only the major beats of the band's history are covered. Boone's book was useful in filling in the gaps. With that said, Boone often clouds some things with his own ideas. While using him as a source, I exercised my best judgment to include only statements of fact in the article while omitting what seemed more like opinion; Boone hated the name the Lovin' Spoonful, the song "Daydream" and he thought Butler was a better singer than Sebastian, but none of that made it into this article. Perhaps the biggest example of this is that Boone attributes much of the bands personal squabbles to Sebastian's girlfriend and later wife, Loretta "Lorey" Kaye. Boone paints her as the band's Yoko and the source of disagreements between Sebastian and the rest of the group, but I have not seen this mentioned anywhere else. Other reliable sources instead point to creative differences between Sebastian and Yanovsky and the band's drug bust as the source of many of the issues. That is what you will read in this article instead. I could go on, but I hope you get my point. If you find any examples where you think I have relied on Boone improperly, please let me know.
  • Thanks for the response - I appreciate your awareness of the issue and efforts to avoid it. I'll check a few things, but hopefully nothing untoward will turn up given your work to mitigate the issue already. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked a few sources while checking prose - no issues found on this front. Pass.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • No outstanding issues on talk page (Butler information is sourced and in text), no edit warring, no major changes since February. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • For File:The Lovin' Spoonful, 1965 (2).png, isn't there a copyright symbol for Clumbia in the bottom right of the first page? It's tiny, but appears to be visible. The pdf is also watermarked 'Copyrighted material' in the lower right of each page.
  • That is for a different ad, advertising Bob Dylan, Paul Revere & the Raiders and Andy Williams, all of whom were signed to Columbia. The Spoonful's deal was with Kama Sutra Records/MGM Records, and they neglected to put a copyright on their ad. Also, in the same way that faithful reproductions of PD art cannot be considered under copyright, I do not think a "Copyrighted material" watermark makes PD elements of the magazine no longer PD; rather, its status is only a result of the conditions laid out at Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice advertisement.
  • Ok, sounds good.
  • Given that Erik Jacobsen is in the photo (File:Erik-studio-spoonful.jpg), it's likely not actually his own work as the description states. Are we to assume that Jacobsen bought the copyright from the anonymous photographer at some point?
  • That is a good point and I really have no way to confirm it. It seems Erik Jacobsen created a Commons account in 2017 so he could upload these pictures from his personal collection, but all he wrote was that he was the copyright holder. I will try to reach out, but I doubt I will hear back. It is probably best to remove his two images from the article (even if it means I'll have to cry ...)
  • See above.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • No issues, well-illustrated. Pass.
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lovin%27_Spoonful&oldid=1220154040"