Talk:Roy Orbison/Archive 1

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

Inconsistencies/contradictions

This portion: Two misconceptions about Orbison's appearance continue to surface: that he was an albino, and that he wore his trademark dark glasses because he was blind...these misconceptions are not true but many people still seem to think so.

contradicts this: Orbison was born in Vernon, Texas, the second son of Nadine and Orbie Lee. After moving to Fort Worth around 1943 to find work in the munitions and aircraft factories which had expanded due to Second World War, the family moved to the West Texas oil town of Wink in late 1946. Music was an important part of his family life.

Not to mention how poorly-written that second paragraph is. Monkeyfinger 20:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited for about an hour and a half

I found this article very poorly written, and I spent about an hour and a half editing the grammar, the syntax, irrelevent passages and other things. After I finished editing this whole thing, I was frustrated to find that I wasted my time; there was a thing on the top saying that the edits didn't take for some reason that I didn't understand. It was a waste of 90 minutes. Slater79 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Work with John Lennon

Someone added that Roy Orbison recorded with John Lennon. I never heard of that and it is not in any list I could find. Perhaps the person who posted this could provide details....DW

He did work with John Lennon. "In May 1963, and with the success of "In Dreams", Wesley Rose eventually accepted an invitation for Roy to tour England on a bill with The Beatles, who meant nothing in the United States at that time. The tour was sold-out in one afternoon. On the first night, Roy did fourteen encores before The Beatles could get on stage." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annj87 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.royorbison.com/us/biography

Date of death

My source records that Roy died while visiting his mother in Hendersonville, not in Nashville Tiles 08:01 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

True,Hendesonville is so close to Nashville sometimes we just call it Nashville.

Fan club

I think Roy Orbison´s voice is the best that I´ve ever heard. I would know if there exists a Roy Orbison fans club. I´m from Argentina. Un saludo pa´ Chechito que me está mirando.

No biggie, but I was in the supermarket yesterday and they were playing the usual music, I believe the technical term is "horrid 80s caterwauling" when suddenly on came something by Roy from the Travelling Wilburies and I was at peace. Ortolan88 18:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grady Orbison's death

Did Grady Lee Orbison die in Henderson, Tennessee; Henderson County, Tennessee; or Hendersonville, Tennessee? These are three separate places, which do not border each other. Orange Mike Grady Lee was killed in an automobile accident in Hendersonville, TN

Imported article

I imported the article Roy Orbison and Friends, A Black and White Night from Wikinfo. Someone familiar with it might want to add an appropriate link here.—Eloquence 08:54, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Praise from Presley

That Elvis Presley called Orbison "The Greatest Singer in the World" is mentioned twice in this article. The 2nd reference is more informational, IMO...

OK, I used the 2nd reference to replace the 1st one in the paragraph with other artists' compliments.

Removed material

removed advert for e bay auction from this page Tiles 06:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of 'In Dreams' by David Lynch

I believe the reference to Lynch using 'In Dreams' in the film Wild At Heart is erroneous - he used it extensively in the film previous to Wild At Heart, which was Blue Velvet. Musicfreeek 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Trademark sunglasses

How about a brief note on how he adopted his trademark sunglasses? Lee M 23:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roy coming to wear the sun glasses was kind of a fluke. He liked wearing his regular glasses on stage, but one day he could not find them before a show. So he wore a pair of sun glasses. Someone on the tour said "That's your look Roy, thats your image!" and the sun glasses was with him from then on. Joe Melson http://www.joemelson.com/ 72.150.120.24 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:19, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

In 2006, Orbison was remembered with a new book that fans from around the world came together and wrote with main author Chris O'Neil. The book titled Straight From Our Hearts was a hit among fans on both sides of the Atlantic

I'm particularly interested in finding this book, which does not seem to exist outside the mention in this article. I'm a librarian and recently had a patron ask for a copy of this book. I was unable to find it in WorldCat, Books in Print, Amazon, or Bookfinder.com. --Laurapalooza (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


The book in which you seek is available in Australia and as well among a few of the fans here in the states.....the book was done by myself and several other fans with Chris being the main author....The book is based memories from fans and famous artists....the first 96 pages is a wonderful and carefully written story on Roy and his life.....the rest is as I said memories and stories of Roy and what he did for fans and what he means to them...its the best book on the market among all other books, and most of all, NO ONE made a dime off this book, and we did it with the nothing but the best love and care for Roy....hope this helps you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvoyager (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing

I think this article needs to be copy-edited for comma usage (not enough). There are definitely places that seem to need a comma. --Anderal 01:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

How about a picture of a younger Roy Orbison from his prime years? http://my.tele2.ee/orbison/orbison/Roy.jpg User:BigBurkey 16:50, 7 June 2006

FARC

Unless the below objections are adressed, this article will be removed from FA list: Brilliant prose relic. Inadequate lead (see Wikipedia lead). Half of the article are lists. Stub and bulleted 'Achievements' section. Single general reference (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). It wouldn't pass FAC today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discography lists moved to Roy Orbison discography Tiles 08:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Uhhh.. I just noticed that the opening two paragraphs of this article are a word for word cut'n'paste of allmusic.com's Roy Orbison biography?! See [1]. Not a good look for a featured article!! Seems this intro was added on October 18 by anon User:71.134.12.160 in this edit. --Stormie 12:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No joke. Sigh... I removed the lines and threw something else up in its place. Pretty sad this made it to the front page! --Fastfission 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lack of coverage of musical craft and use of falsetto

I'm concerned at the lack of coverage of Orbison's musical craft in this article. For instance, there is this:

he is revered for his song writing abilities. Master record producer and Orbison fan Don Was, commenting on Orbison's writing skills, said: "he defied the rules of modern composition." Songwriter Bernie Taupin (composer of many lyrics for Elton John) and others, referred to Orbison as far ahead of the times, creating lyrics and music in a manner that broke with all traditions.

However, there is no substantial explanation of why he was so revolutionary and ahead of his time, of how he defied the rules of composition, only, perhaps, reference to his "operatic" voice and singing range. What exactly was special about his vocal abilities? How was his guitar playing? How did he approach songwriting? Related is the absence of any mention of his use of falsetto. The term is not even mentioned, yet it is part of his signature sound. --Tsavage 19:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

roy orbison is amazing. but come on folks, there's no support whatsoever given to the assertion that he was "lyrically sophisticated", or "way ahead of his time", or was doing something "unheard of in rock at the time", or that he used "rhythmically advanced melodies", or that he "broke with all tradition." those phrases are either highly suspect (broke with all tradition? that's an absurd claim) or COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED WITHIN THE WIKI. roy orbison is great. but the "encyclopedic" wiki reads like a typical fluffjob. bottom of the barrel fluffjob, as far as the musical description/analysis goes. encyclopedia, my foot. 128.119.232.218 03:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Escott?

The lone footnote to this article simply says, "Escott". What the heck is Escott? - dcljr (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a pointer to the book listed in References, (Colin Escott, Roadkill on the Three-Chord Highway. Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0-415-93783-3 — has a chapter devoted to Orbison.) A page number would have certainly been a good idea though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Another surprise fa

I'm surprised this made it to FA. The article is filled with peacock terms and the "Early Career" section rambles off to international success until his death. I've read above that there was a potential copyvio issue that was addressed only after FA status. Why wasn't this addressed in the peer review or FA candidate process??? --malber 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And to head it off at the pass, yes I know that I can improve it. My point is, as a FA, it shouldn't need it. --malber 20:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe it's an old one, that got in through the old "Brilliant Prose" route. Perhaps allowing it onto the Front Page is Raul654's way of getting more people interesting in the new Featured Article Review process. Or not; but it might be a nice side effect. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope that wasn't the intention, wouldn't that be dangerously close to WP:POINT? Leithp (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

The trivia section states: It is widely believed that he was the physical basis for the Marvel Comics character, Doctor Octopus.

Widely believed by whom? And it would appear that the cited reference for this entire article is one chapter of a book about rock-n-roll. It should not be difficult to find more references on an influence like Roy Orbison, even books specifically about him!

Yet another issue that should have been addressed in the peer review and FA review process. --malber 20:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Roy Orbison is one of only two singers to ever simultaneously have two Top 5 albums on the Billboard Charts (the other is Elvis Presley). Wasn't this also achieved by Guns N' Roses with Use Your Illusion 1 & 2? --malber 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this has been achieved often. For further solo singers, other album examples include Bruce Springsteen with Human Touch and Lucky Town (#2 and #3 in 1992) [[2]] and most recently, Nelly with Sweat and Suit (#2 and #1 in 2004). And if the statement means singles instead of albums, there are examples there, too (i.e., Mariah Carey with "One Sweet Day" and "Fantasy" in 1995, #1 and #4 respectively). I don't know enough about Orbison to make this correction, nor do I know after reviewing the discography which two albums it is referring to, but I agree that the statement as it appears is wrong. Perhaps it should be changed to "Orbison is one of only a handul of performers to simultaneously have two Top 5 albums on the Billboard Charts?", although I don't know if this is accurate since the two albums are not mentioned nor does it tell which Billboard Chart it refers to (Albums? Singles? Country? Etc.). Either way, the statement needs some clarification and referencing. --Ataricodfish 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's postumously with those albums - after they died they were still on the charts. Many groups had more than one album in the top five.

Strike that, since the statement as it appears is obviously false, I'm deleting it. If it's clarified and referenced, or if someone else disagrees with my decision, I have no problem with it being added again. The quote in question is below. --Ataricodfish 00:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with references like that are weird. But the model airplane hobby is encyclopedic. I don't see a source for it, but there's no reason to think that it's false and we should be able to verify it if there's a question. -Willmcw 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Should it be added as "fun trivia" that a beetle (Orectochilus orbisonorum, see http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/fan-boy-profess.html) has been named in praise of Roy Orbison and his wife? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.149.134 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) No. That would add nothing to the reader's knowledge of Orbison.CanOfWorms (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I watched the Roy's Black & White video on PBS in June 2010 during one of their requests for donations. They said it had been redone in HD and judging from the date at the end of the film it looked like that took place in 2008, but the credits went by fast. The DVD of this video was being given out if you made a moderate donation. His wife Barbara was also there providing commentary along with the PBS host. She spoke very good English, although with a German accent. She looked young for her age which must have been at least late 5o's. I would add some of this to the main article, but I'm not sure if the PBS show was originaly done in 2010, or if it had been done a year or two earlier. The program was a taped version shown late at night, so it was definitely a repeat broadcast shown to collect more donations. If someone knows more definitively, some of this probably should be posted on the main page. BTW the video was in black and white, and while Roy was featured prominently, Springsteen also sang background/duets in a few songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.246.222 (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The concert itself was notable, but PBS broadcasts of it probably are not, unless there are reliable sources to state that its update warrants mention in Orbison's article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Clingfilm

Am I the only one seeing something huge missing from this article? For the generation currently in high school, the first time many have ever heard of Roy Orbison is from http://www.michaelkelly.fsnet.co.uk/karl.htm. I realize that Ulrich Haarbürste never actually existed and that the stories are a joke... But it's a valid bit of trivia, at least.

No, no it isn't. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Haha, I was wondering the same thing. I'd never heard of him before reading the clingwrap stories... Allie 05:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

...Which would make you musically illiterate. If you haven't heard of Roy Orbison, or William Faulkner, or Andy Warhol, it isn't a judgement on them, but on you. Profhum (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that the clingfilm link has just been removed by an anonymous somebody who declared it "disrespectful"! PoV problems here?
Yes, "disrepectful" isn't the right reason to remove it. "Unencyclopedic" and "non-notable" are. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Mummification (BDSM) would be a better place for it, if it goes anywhere.
It's back. I cleaned up what was there and left it. Should we keep it or toss it? Nateji77 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. It is a published novel now, not just a collection of ephemera on the internet. Links suggest it is valid and it is no more "disrespectful" than any other parody.

I noticed that the reference was removed in these edits: [3][4] Was this intentional? Should it be reinstated? - 75.27.233.97 (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any justification for it's removal.

What if some wannabe tacked on a self-published (which means its unpublished) story about Lincoln hoping to piggyback onto his fame? Must we include him in the great man's article? This whole Pupkinesque section can be removed, if you ask me.Profhum (talk) (Oh, look it up.) I agree that it should go It doesn't belong here, just as Biggles doesn't belong in Aviation. CanOfWorms (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Roy's maltese cross

Anybody know why Roy wore a maltese cross? It was his trademark, along with the dark glasses, so a little clarification would be nice. Bold textI Don't think that anyone really knows why Roy Orbison wore an iron cross, but it's definetely something I will look into. - DJ Cormier Official Roy Orbison Homepage

Was Mr Orbison was part-Maltese, perhaps? Eligius (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the Wilburies are out of print

I've always heard that the reason why the Wilbury's albums are out of print has to do with Mrs Roy Orbison having copyright veto power, since Roy had writing credits. True?

False. In fact, for the last few years or so, the two Wilbury widows have been asserting an upcoming rerelease of the albums in various interviews. Latest word on it seems to be from Olivia Harrison.

3 or 4 octave vocal range

In the first paragraph, Orbison is described as being "internationally recognized for his... four-octave vocal range", whereas under "Legacy" it says that "Roy Orbison's vocal range was impressive (three octaves)". This is contradictory - I guess the two sections were written by different people. Anyone know for sure which is correct? I've been under the impression for years that his range was three octaves, but I can't remember the source for that so it may well be wrong.

It is true. The Big O had 3-octave vocal range. Sorry, can't give you a link to confirm my words right now


I can believe that he had a range around three octaves. The only person I know of who had a wider range was Yma Sumac, a Peruvian singer popular in the 1950s. If he had a four octave range, that means he could start 10 notes from the bottom of the piano and go to 10 from the top. Impossible for anyone who is human!Knoxvilletiger (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)No, it doesn't mean that at all, that would be four octaves starting from a particular note. CanOfWorms (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)It is almost as foolish as saying that it means he had a vocal range of 1 kHz to 16kHz which is also a span of four octaves. CanOfWorms (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Rebroff had a range of four and a half octaves. Having heard him sing, I believe it. But on the article, and as far as I have seen, I have no proof. A pity. If we had that for Orbison it would be good. 72.155.201.9 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Felice and Boudleaux Bryant

Could an Orbison expert please add to the songlist at Felice and Boudleaux Bryant? --Design 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Old photo is back

I restored a photo of Orbison that was removed in December. It appears that someone tried to replace it with another photo, which didn't actually load. Was there any other reason that the old photo was deleted? Galanskov 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Fire

I am surprised there is no mention of the fire in 1968 in which two of his sons died.

. It's mentioned in thePersonal Life section.CanOfWorms (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It is mentioned but the cause of the fire is not. I always heard it was because his kids were lighting aresol cans for fun and one exploded. But this might be one of those Nashville urban legends and I have no idea if it is true or not nut-meg (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Four decades?

In the opening paragraph it states that his recording career spanned more than four decades. How is this possible? Since he died in 1988, that would mean he would have had to have been recording in the 1940s Four decades = 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. More than four decades means there must be another decade he recorded in, which could only be the 40s --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

He did a sketch with Laraine Newman and sang "Pretty Woman," on SNL in 1977. Maybe worth mentioning. 67.34.47.141 (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC) No. Even if true and verifiable, that's a fairly uninteresting bit of trivia CanOfWorms (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Roy never did Saturday Night Live until May 21, 1987...it was the first time as well for the show that they allowed a singer to do three songs....someone did do a skit in 77 with Pretty Woman, but it wasnt Roy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvoyager (talk • contribs) 04:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lefty Wilbury

Orbison used the stage name "Lefty Wilbury" as part of the group Traveling Wilburys. I have added the following text to the main infobox, but anon-ip:s seem to remove it all the time.

Alias = Lefty Wilbury[1]

The stage name is a well known fact, and since this is an encyclopedia, it should be stated in the article. The other members of the band all have their own stage names stated in their own articles. Please make sure it stays in this article aswell. ☺ Spiby ☻ 10:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Road and Lefty Wilbury

Okay, I added in the Thunder Road quote and the reference to Lefty Wilbury. Anyone who tries to remove them will face my Wiki Fist of Death!Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restoration

Well, I see that someone not a registered used has simply chopped out the fact that Roy Orbison was honored in Bruce Springsteen's famous song Thunder Road, no attempt at discussion or anything. This is an important point to leave in the article because don't forget that Bruce Springsteen played backup guitar for Roy in Black and White Night, and the earlier reference to Roy in Bruce's work is important to establish the relationship between these two important musical figures. I'm going to restore it unless someone objects.Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sasson Jeans

Hi. I added some text about the 1982 commercial Roy appeared in, including a link to the jeans commercial.

Thanks Electric Japan (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Commercial

"In 1982, Orbison made an appearance in a Sasson woman's jeans commercial."

Hello. I noticed that someone removed this fact that can be proven easily on YouTube and other sites. Electric Japan (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Benny Hill impersonation

Benny Hill did a dead on impersonation of Roy Orbison singing "You're the One" on one episode of his TV show, with the announcement of it being a song from "Roy Orbison's musical bum", followed by Hill as another character whacking the announcer and saying "That's MUSIC ALBUM!". Original airdate, April 21, 1976. Episode 7 on this site. http://www.runstop.de/set03b.html Coincidentally, Hill was 52 years old then, the same age Orbison was when he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Toupee

It doesn't mention his ridiculous toupee anywhere ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.40.208.137 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need a source. --Moni3 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about Orbison biography

I work for Washington State University, and I've been researching Roy Orbison's bio after reading that Orbison attended WSU (then Washington State College) in the late 50's. Can anyone confirm this? WSMagazine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

Orbison's biographies indicate he attended school in Texas. No mentions of any schools outside of Texas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Songs popular only outside the U.S.

Should mention be made of Orbison songs which were hits in Australia/New Zealand ((and maybe other places) but not in major markets like the U.S.? I'm specifically thinking of songs like "Penny Arcade" and "Communication Breakdown", which IMO should have been worldwide hits, but don't seem to be well-known outside Australia/New Zealand. He also recorded a cover of "Danny Boy" IIRC in the 1970s which is reasonably well-known, which could deserve a mention here. Graham87 17:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Danny Boy cover was from his 1972 album Memphis. Graham87 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The cause of ulcers

The article stated: "A tendency towards stress had manifested itself in duodenal ulcers as far back as 1960,"
Duodenal ulcers aren't caused by stress - they're caused by infection by H._pylori...
86.25.120.152 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

that's not entirely true. peptic ulcers are usually caused by h pylori but, not always. stress CAN cause ulcers, but it is not the most common cause. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973838 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Damn good article

Congratulations are due to everyone involved in this article. It tells a fascinating story and captures the essence of Orbison, while still hewing to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia. This balance is rarely achieved here, IMO. Nice work indeed. Shaun courtice (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you so much for this. If there are some discrepancies, I for one, will forgive them. Frank B. 75.220.163.116 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


This is one of the best-written, most accurate, most satisfying articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Kudos, and thank you. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

West Texas Historical Assn additions

I reverted these edits by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), for the following reasons:

  • I attempted to locate the source document on Google or on the West Texas Historical Association publications list ("Rooted in Country: Roy Orbison, His Early Career, and the Wink Westerners" by Leland Turner April 1, 2011) and did not find it. If Billy Hathorn has this document, I would be very interested to read it. Otherwise, I would have to contact the author to get him to send it to me. I'm not sure this is necessary, however because of the following:
  • The facts inserted into the article about where Orbison's first guitar came from, that Gene Autry's image was on it, that Orbison called himself L.F., "Orbison was pleased with the Four Star Production...", seem to be fairly trivial. Why is it important for readers to know this? What Orbison first learned to play has more value, I think.
  • The edits introduced overlinking in several places or simply unnecessary piped links.
  • The edits introduced violations of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch): Orbison's sons "perished" instead of died. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


"His dark and brooding persona"

Re: "His dark and brooding persona, combined with his tremulous voice in lovelorn ballads marketed to teenagers, helped Orbison corner the pop market in the early 1960s."

This page reads way more like ad copy than anything. I'd love to see where the most active editors get their paychecks from. Enfascination (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

I, who wrote the article based on the best sources I could find, get my reward from comments like yours, that merely complain about vagaries and offer nothing material to improve. So thanks for giving me another reason to get out of bed in the morning. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

invalid source

in the the section "death", they used National Enquirer and as everyone walking on the face of this existing earth knows, everything on NE is a lie, so, yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.153.41 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The source isn't the National Enquirer, but one of Orbison's biographers using the National Enquirer story to illustrate just how famous Orbison had re-become. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Image shifting

On the off-chance that the editor who did this has some kind of master plan, I'm bringing this here before I make the edit to fix this issue. The image that topped this article, File:Royorbisoncolorpic.jpg showing Orbison in 1988, was moved to the middle of the article (in the section about Orbison in the late 1960s--why?) and the b/w image of Orbison in 1965 now tops the article. Why were these images shifted?

I get a general sense and I don't know if it's policy, that the image to identify a figure at the top of an article, should be a recent image, or one taken as recently as possible. The image of Orbison in 1988 is a nonfree image, so it should be used only sparingly. If it's going to be kept in the middle of the article, it's going to be deleted.

Did someone have a master plan here? --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the color image from the '80s looks best in the infobox as it has Roy looking into the article from the right; he's facing our left. Otherwise, for bios of deceased people I should think the most classic, most immediately recognizable or well known image should be used for the infobox, irrespective of when it was taken. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree I think the picture at the top of the page is inaccurate to the legacy of Roy Orbison. It also looks like the picture has been flipped. I think a younger picture is a better introduction. Annj87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
What does "inaccurate to the legacy of Roy Orbison" mean? --Moni3 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It means the picture is flipped and he doesn't even actually look like that. The mole on his face in every other picture is on the opposite side of his face for starters. It's "inaccurate to his legacy" because it's not a true depiction of his career. I don't feel that I'm alone here in thinking that this picture isn't flattering or even accurate. I just think a more classic picture would be a better choice. Annj87 (talk) Annj87 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
A single image that depicts the entirety of a subject's career or life is extraordinary rare. I don't believe I've ever seen an image of Orbison represent "his legacy" and this standard is not a strong one to match an image to, particularly for a singer. Nonetheless, the 1988 image has no live source (the link on the image summary page is dead) and it's only a matter of time before someone nominates the 1988 image for deletion. I don't think the 1965 image is the best replacement, so I'm asking for suggestions. We're looking for an image with a strong online source--one that's not going to die in a matter of months. As for flattering, that's not an issue. As for accurate--the only way the image could be inaccurate is if it's not a picture of Orbison. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Octaves

It seems to be the fashion these days to claim extraordinary amounts of octaves for singers. I am sure that "it has been suggested he had a three-octave voice", or "he performed in a range of around two and a half octaves" would be quite sufficient for accuracy. I know some people wildly claim four, but they would just be wrong, IMO. I'm no expert on him, but I am knowledgeable about the voice, and have been listening to his hits on YouTube and he uses, from what I heard, a range from A2, which is a low note baritones are generally more comfortable with than tenors, thought many tenors can sing it, and he goes up to a top D, which is a high tenor note; this makes a range of about 2 and a half octaves that I have heard in his songs, and which would fit with his voice type (which I personally suspect was a light lyric tenor rather than a baritone - this is a voice type with good, light, high notes but sometimes rather good low notes too, bordering on a baritone sound). It's quite likely he could squeeze out a few lower notes and that he could sing a few notes higher in falsetto, but a range of much more than 3 octaves would be unlikely IMO and I don't think - correct me if I'm wrong - he sang anything in his records to suggest more than 3 octaves. I sometimes wonder if some don't people count the octaves that the voice spans - that is the number of spans of eight white notes on the piano that the voice can cover, but instead take "octaves" as being those on the piano from Cs to Cs (which give the names wwe give to note pitches, such as C1, C2 etc), so meaning you could have a range from B2 to D5 (just over two octaves) but people would call that having "a four-octave voice" just because you can sing at least one note in each of four numbered octaves... Orlando098 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have never encountered anyone making that mistake. The more common error is simple exaggeration. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaundice

Roy Orbison never suffered from jaundice that's a rumor! He was just fair skinned, I've never read anywhere that he had jaundice.LNR615(talk) 11:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Discussion

Look, I love Roy Orbison's music, but Wikipedia has policies about this kind of thing, and as I noted, this article is written largely from a fan's perspective. Disagree with that blanket statement if you want, but before you do, I suggest you re-read the article, keeping an eye out for blatant examples of "words to watch" from Wikipedia's manual of style. I refer you to WP:Weasel words, which clearly states that "What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. The guideline does not apply to quotations". Then, if you don't understand what this is referring to, or even if you think you do, look further down the page and see the sections on WP:Puffery, WP:Peacock, and WP:Weasel. To get specific, since my one edit out of potential dozens was hastily dismissed as "unwarranted" based on the completely groundless assumption that "it's quite obvious the editor who placed it there has not read the sources," let's be clear about a couple of things, starting with the fact that referring to voices as powerful and particular notes as "astounding" are blatantly subjective statements. If you disagree, you simply don't know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, and you need to educate yourself more before continuing this discussion. Furthermore, citing the source for a subjective statement does not make it suddenly objective. Regardless of what you, me, or yes, even a properly cited Alan Clayson may think about Orbison, Orbison's voice is not objectively powerful, nor is any particular note objectively "astounding." If you want to include such a quote from Clayson, and make it clear within the text that you are quoting an individual rather than trying to depict Orbison as objectively powerful and astounding, than I suppose you are welcome to do so. Minaker (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the article. I wrote the article. What perspective is missing? Have you, in fact, read the sources? Are you aware the POV template links to a discussion on the discussion page, which you did not do? What are you imagining here: that someone else is going to come along and check the article against the sources? Why not you? Is there something wrong with bringing this to the talk page first before putting an unnecessary template on the article? --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I support Minaker's edit which removed "astounding note" and replaced it with a quote, except that the quote is already in the article, so its second appearance should be removed or another quote should be selected.
There are further parts of the article which use non-neutral wording, such as saying Wink, Texas, was "desolate" though it was full of oilmen and the activities of the oil industry. Other inappropriate words include "stunned", "tepid", and both "deep astonishment" and "astonished. However, the problems are not so large as to require a POV tag at the top. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Moni3, the template was hardly "unnecessary." Yes, I could have gone through the article and made sweeping changes every time I personally thought it was appropriate to do so, but the purpose of putting up those templates is to get other Wikipedia readers to review the article and make such judgments as a community. To answer your question of "What are you imagining here," I was "imagining" that other people would review the article and help make some of the decisions since Wikipedia is a community. I changed what I saw as the most blatant example of POV and yes, left it open for the community to make further decisions. Would you rather I have made all the decisions myself? Maybe you think I'm being lazy for not doing so, but forgive me if I don't mistake Wikipedia for my own personal playground. If you think this is wrong of me, I think you'd have a difficult case to make.

If you're offended by the fact that I didn't start a new section on the talk page right away, well, maybe I should have, that I'll admit. You're right on that point. I still see no reason for your silly assumption that I didn't read the sources. My so-called "unwarranted" change was the removal of a clearly biased statement, and it should be pointed out yet again that even if you cite a source a subjective statement does not automatically become objective. This was the point I made in my previous comment, which you may have had a perfectly reasonable rebuttal to, but instead, you chose to ignore it. If you're going to ignore my central points on the discussion page, why be so adamant about having a discussion? So you can complain that I'm "imagining" things? To me, that doesn't sound like someone wanting to have a discussion, that sounds like someone looking for a fight. I'm too darn tired to fight, so I'll just let you have the rest of your say while I move on to more constructive things. Minaker (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The template is unnecessary. You should have started a discussion if you think the article is not neutral. The template will sit there until asteroids kill us all. That's not hyperbole. Either you read the sources and decide on your own if the language is embellishment or outright flattery, or it sits there. Folks don't just take care of templates unless they get right into the sources and hash it out in edits or on the talk page. Furthermore, it is impossible to review an article for neutrality without reading the sources to ascertain how the published experts treat the material.
These are not unwarranted claims to say that Orbison's voice was extraordinary, or that he was very grieved by the death of Buddy Holly, that Wink was desolate, that Orbison was stunned by Elvis Presley's gyrations onstage--these are points the sources make, published biographies and even Orbison's quotes. I've summarized them, I hope, as closely as I could without close paraphrasing. This is not a featured article, but I wrote it to meet the criteria of an FA.
I'm all for Wikipedia being a community, but it is clearly not. In this case, it is one editor doing all the research and writing and others criticizing it, and no one really having a common understanding of what a high-quality article is. I have mine because I've written 20 featured articles and reviewed dozens of others. There are always differing opinions of what some editors think is acceptable and what others don't think is acceptable. This is where the discussion comes in.
So. Orbison was greatly grieved by Holly's death. Holly was not considered an attractive man, and Orbison, who considered himself unattractive and also wore thick framed glasses like Holly, saw a kindred spirit in Holly and the possibility that he could be successful in music. He was greatly upset by Holly's death. How might you summarize it? Orbison recorded several songs for RCA Victor and none charted. Tepid doesn't work then, what would? There's no way around the fact that the first time Orbison sang the high G sharp in "Running Scared" that all the musicians were so surprised at it they stopped playing. What other wording would suffice? Are you suggesting that the entire incident be removed because it falls outside the scope of what is neutral? It doesn't. Sources published it. It should be included. Orbison hated Wink. Nothing there appealed to him. He considered it a desolate wasteland. Why is it unacceptable in your view to summarize these points for the article? If you intended something else, please explain. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
We are already in the weeds here, with article ownership issues coming immediately to the fore. Collegiality is hindered by one editor saying s/he is the only one qualified to write the article.
Instead, let's focus on the disputed text: I propose that the word desolate not be used; rather, we should simply give Orbison's opinion that the town Wink held nothing for him. Greatly upset or greatly grieved at Holly's death is far more apt than "deep astonishment". Surprise is a better word for the musicians stopping playing at the never-before-heard vocal note. Saying that the records didn't chart is better than describing the experience as tepid. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with neutrality, it's just changing expressive language for dull language. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"Deep astonishment" doesn't hold a candle to "grief". Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it includes grief and implies more. Rothorpe (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Gosh with the ownership again. Anything to keep you from reading the sources. These books aren't magical texts that only I have access to. How else are you to determine if the article is not neutral than access the sources? A collaborative encyclopedia means folks work together, hopefully at the same level, or at least in a direction most agree upon. I'm not saying no one else can decide what's best for the article therefore I am the god of it. Conversely, I'm asking you to read the sources so you can make better informed opinions and not take my interpretation of the authors' words. Instead I come across this pandemic dislike of becoming informed tucked inside yet another ownership accusation.
Rothorpe hit the point there. Change good writing to dull writing because you don't understand what neutrality is and you can only make wild generalizations that "astonishment" or "tepid" are inappropriate because...you haven't read what the published authors stated in reliable sources. It puts you at a significant disadvantage in understanding at least half of your own argument. --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounding Out Pop: Analytical Essays in Popular Music

I'm tentatively enthusiastic that Binksternet has expanded the article with sources. The most fun I ever had on Wikipedia was working with other editors who knew the sources inside and out, discussing and arguing amiably about the best way to present the information. It's in this vein that I'm making these comments.

  • On p. 18, Zak makes reference to the stylistic characteristics of Orbison's song constructions. This is explicitly covered in the Song structures section in this article, but Binksternet added it to the Writing for the Voice section. It could work either place, but I think the paragraph that begins with "Influenced by contemporaneous hits such as "Come Back to Me (My Love)"..." is now less focused.
  • The statement Biographer Clayson, praising Orbison's vocal performance, wrote that Orbison's voice "came not from his throat but deeper within" thuds instead of sings. It's an elbow jab in what was an otherwise clear paragraph. Let me do this. I'm going to reproduce what Clayson wrote, provide the paragraph I wrote, and ask you again to review the previous version of the article for neutrality.

To this unappetizing brew was added a transforming ingredient: Roy had found his voice at last. No longer the Sun hillbilly cat or RCA goo merchant, he unfurled a rich, supple purity that, without plumminess, grafted a bel canto eloquence onto "Only the Lonely", investing it with a hitherto unrealized maturity of gesture. By the same instinct that governs street corner clusters of youths singing for the own amusements, operatic pitch and breath control were Roy's without years of carping tutorials or tedious exercise. He'd stumbled on a sound reserve that came not from his throat but deeper within. Like a fisherman's tall tale, media hyperbole would extend Orbison's tonal range to an impossible six octaves. Though his vocal daredevilry grew with succeeding records, 'my octave range isn't extremely wide but what I do have is sold and useful'. Even when his untrained diction verged on slovenliness, it only reinforced endearing idiosyncrasies whereby, in the opinion of no less than Duane Eddy, if others attempted to 'sing the songs that he sang, they didn't have the same raw power and the same sound that he created ... when you thought he'd sung as high as he possibly could, he would effortlessly go higher and finish up with a big finish and it was wonderful.'

Previous version of this paragraph that I wrote (I did not add the info about Porter):

Influenced by contemporaneous hits such as "Come Back to Me My Love" and "Come Softly to Me", Orbison and Melson wrote a song in April 1960 which, when recorded, employed strings, the Anita Kerr doo-wop backup singers, and finally, an astounding note hit by Orbison in falsetto that showcased a powerful voice which, according to biographer Clayson, "came not from his throat but deeper within". It was titled "Only the Lonely", and Orbison and Melson tried to pitch it to Elvis Presley and the Everly Brothers, both of whom turned it down. Recorded at RCA's Nashville studio with chief engineer Bill Porter placing the musicians as needed, Orbison released his own version instead and it shot to number 2 on the Hot 100 in the U.S. and hit number 1 in the UK and Australia.

The falsetto fact is cited to Clayson, p. 76. (Zak, p. 24 and 34 as well) I don't know why it was removed. Peter Lehman (p. 11) writes, referencing "Only the Lonely", "He sang in a richly nuanced voice with a startling range, while the song itself had a complex structure, perhaps the result of its combining what had been two separate songs." Lehman spends a few pages on Orbison's voice especially in "Only the Lonely", and I hope you understand why it would be a burden to reproduce all that material here. With this evidence, I hope it's as clear to you as it was to me that "astonishing" is not an unwarranted adjective. But even if that leaves you with bugs crawling all over your skin, then consider the sentence without "astonishing". It's still accurate and well-written.

As it reads now:

Influenced by contemporaneous hits such as "Come Back to Me (My Love)" and "Come Softly to Me", Orbison and Melson wrote a song in early 1960 which, when recorded on March 25, 1960, employed strings and the Anita Kerr doo-wop backup singers. The song was titled "Only the Lonely"; Orbison and Melson had earlier tried to pitch it to Elvis Presley and the Everly Brothers but were turned down. Orbison and Melson recorded the song at RCA's Nashville studio with Porter trying a completely new strategy: building the mix from the top down rather from the bottom up, beginning with the close-miked background vocals in the foreground and ending with the rhythm section soft in the background. This combination became Orbison's trademark sound. The single shot to US #2 on the Hot 100 and hit #1 in the UK for two weeks, also Australia. Biographer Clayson, praising Orbison's vocal performance, wrote that Orbison's voice "came not from his throat but deeper within".

  • "also Australia"? It's not clear what that means. The article needs to be consistent and the Manual of Style prefers "number" in place of # for charted songs. See MOS:HASH
  • The fact about Orbison pitching "Only the Lonely" to Elvis and the Everly Brothers is covered in Clayson, p. 77, which is already cited in the paragraph. That cite needed tag needs to be removed.
  • While it is integral to convey to readers Orbison's trademark sound, this, I think, should either be given its own paragraph, or shifted to the Song structures section. I'm for placing it in the Song structures section as it is clearly an element of style and the biography portion covers the notable parts of Orbison's life and career. I also think this might be able to be expanded.


  • The paragraph beginning Playing shows late into the night, was shifted, and ok, I can see the chronological issue here. I thought it more a thematic one (Zak also places this information in the same chronology: Orbison moving to Monument and his partnership with Melson), but the segue into the next section, the last sentence in this paragraph, Wesley Rose maneuvered Orbison into the sights of producer Fred Foster at Monument Records, now needs something to tie it into the rest of the paragraph. The sentence "After two tepid attempts with RCA Victor, they decided not to option Orbison for another song" was removed, I assume, because it was deemed not neutral (cough). Suggestion: "Unenthused with Orbison's lack of success at RCA, Wesley Rose ..." The paragraph should flow and draw the reader in to go farther through the entire article.
  • The sentence This sound prefigured "Only The Lonely" recorded the next March doesn't belong here. For readers unfamiliar with Orbison's work, it's confusing. The information about "Only the Lonely" should recall the same production issues "Uptown" displayed, but the info about "Uptown" should not reference a song that has yet to be described in this article.
  • Citing in the middle of sentences is disruptive to the reader and should be used only when absolutely necessary. I don't think it's quite necessary to cite, for example, the date "Paper Boy" was recorded (or actually, to state that outright--the year is enough).
  • This might need to be shifted to a footnote: Porter said that Orbison "never understood the engineer's contribution." if it's kept in the article at all. I don't know why it's there.
  • Formatting fun: links to GoogleBooks slows down load time for large articles. Reference and bibliography formatting should be consistent in an article.

At any rate, I look forward to your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than jumping right in with responses, I want to shine a little light on one thing about Orbison. Lehman says on page 9 of his book that he wishes to prove Orbison's greatness. (I think he succeeds.) Historian John Rumble of the Country Music Hall of Fame who interviewed Wesley Rose, Fred Foster, Chet Atkins, Bill Porter and others saw a pattern in Orbison's best-selling recordings: they were all done at RCA Studio B with the "A Team", from "Only the Lonely" to "Oh, Pretty Woman". Rumble wrote about this in his three-part biography of Porter published in The Journal of Country Music in 1996–97. Rumble's point is that Orbison's greatness on disc was tied to a crack group that understood what he wanted, and could give it to him. Chet Atkins biographer John McClellan noticed the same thing, that the A Team was the ticket to hits. When Bill Porter left, Atkins did not have so many hits; the team was broken. Atkins himself said that Porter was the reason for the so-called Nashville Sound, for his hit records. The complete Nashville "A Team" is analogous to the Los Angeles "Wrecking Crew" or the Detroit Funk Brothers, with the difference that the veteran session cats were augmented by Anita Kerr who was critical to the arrangements, and Bill Porter critical to the studio's recorded sound. Of course, Foster was important as Orbison's producer, no question. Orbison's sound was very unusual, and unusually demanding on the people involved. Others following the A Team were not so well equipped to meet the challenge.
Lehman, Amburn and Clayson did not see this aspect in its fullness, and did not write about it. Nevertheless, I think it is worth having a thread about it woven into the fabric of Orbison's story.
Let me percolate your specific points for a bit through my brain's folds and I'll respond. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's inevitable that the sources present information with a specific bent, sometimes the fault or overt intention of author bias, sometimes just to sell books. I found Clayson's book to be the most neutral overall. It seemed to describe the facts of Orbison's life dispassionately. Amburn's was kind of odd: he insisted on presenting Orbison in the same scheme as other musicians who had died spectacularly in some way, going out of his way in once instance, to shock the reader by unnecessarily describing the parts of Patsy Cline found in her plane crash. Unfortunately, I don't think Amburn had much to work with as Orbison was pretty dull in the drug and fast lifestyle department and his death wasn't that scandalous either. Both these biographies came out within two years of Orbison's death and both reiterated a similar theme: Orbison wanted to be a star, and was very talented, but was not extremely driven (as say, according to Amburn, someone might be not only to succeed but burn out early as well), and was surprised by his own success. Lehman's book is a direct stylistic treatment of Orbison's music and his influence on culture instead of a biography, and the source is used closely for this purpose: to address Orbison's style and influence on music and culture.
I understand the point about Porter's contributions to the Nashville Sound, and it should be stated if it is indeed covered in a reliable source, what an expert thinks is the reason for Orbison's success, and of course be stated with due weight. Clayson, Amburn, and Lehman all make multiple references to the Nashville Sound. I don't know why I did not put more emphasis on this (possibly because the Wikipedia article was not extensive when I wrote this one), but this is why it's beneficial to have other editors as familiar with all the sources. To bounce ideas off each other. --Moni3 (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
General thoughts about writing style: I appreciate the clarity of tone that can result from having one main author of an article. The reader is not jerked about from fact to disjointed fact; the story unfolds naturally. Most of the articles I have advanced to GA and FA benefit from having one voice, but there's at least one of "mine" that remains an unattractive patchwork collection of facts, and it sticks in my craw. However, the one-voice approach has a weak spot in the possibility that the one author may downplay or miss an important element of the story.
I think in this case we can work to restore the one-voice flow. My personal goal is to retain as much factual studio data as possible surrounding the 1959 to 1964 Nashville period. Things like recording dates and places, which songs at which sessions, which people involved when, etc. Certainly I want to help the reader understand that Orbison recording with Monument Records was in the exact same room as the earlier sessions for RCA Records; Monument did not have their own studio until 1965 when Foster took over a large upstairs space, a former Masonic Lodge at 315 Seventh Street North in Nashville. My goal of having more detail runs against the grain of the article's flow as it stood prior to my involvement—the flow being largely thematic: "Writing for the voice", "Developing the image", and "Riding the success". Our task is to figure out where to slot details within the themes, or where to slot the themes within the details. Or maybe there's a better solution! Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Specific responses
  • I have never worried about how long the page takes to load. I have long embraced Google Books links for the immediate convenience they offer to the readers who are able access the link (which I have been told is not every part of the world.) I especially appreciate links directly to a page in the book. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not married to citing in the middle of sentence if editors are in agreement about the content. I'm so used to working on heavily disputed topics that I employed the mid-sentence cite without thinking. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree regarding "This sound prefigured" going in later, to recall an earlier session.
  • Melson's involvement should be accurately placed in the correct year. I don't know the exact date, but Orbison and Melson are described by Zak as having worked together for a "over a year" when they landed in the studio in June 1959. The earlier version of the article placed the first collaboration incorrectly in 1959.
  • I removed "two tepid attempts" not because I didn't like it—I removed it because I wanted to tell the reader there were three recording sessions which resulted in seven songs, two of which were released as singles (including two of the seven used as the B-sides, of course). This is more accurate than "two tepid attempts", more encyclopedic. Perhaps even more detail is possible, telling the reader the singles were "Seems to Me" and "Almost 18". These songs were under Chet Atkins as producer but not with Bill Porter as engineer, who had not yet been hired by RCA. My addition told the reader that Atkins was producer, allowing the interpretation that, even though Orbison was "in awe of" Atkins, the man was fallible as a producer. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything I removed regarding falsetto. Minaker removed the "astounding note" bit last month. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The reduced focus on the paragraph beginning "Influenced by contemporaneous hits such as..." comes from its earlier mistaken chronology. The song "Only The Lonely" could not have been written in April if it was recorded earlier in March. If Clayson gets this wrong do we trust the bit about Elvis and the Everly Brothers, "both of whom turned it down"? What's the exact chronology?
    Billboard author Fred Bronson says that Elvis never heard the song pitched and that the Everly Brothers did not exactly turn the song down. Rather, Orbison and Melson drove to Memphis to play it for Elvis but they were told by his handlers to go to Nashville and he would hear it there the next day. In Nashville, Elvis didn't show up but the Everly Brothers were there. When Melson and Orbison played the song for them, because of the shyness of the songwriters the Everlys did not understand the song was being pitched to them. The Everlys played one of their own songs back to Orbison and Melson. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Also Australia" appears to be tacked on. It should be removed or worked into the prose more smoothly. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok. At this point, how would you like to proceed? I think it would be helpful to write a paragraph about Orbison's characteristic style as described by Zak (and seconded by Lehmann) and include it in the appropriate section. I'd also like to put more emphasis on Orbison as an early example of the Nashville Sound, where Pullman's work would be put in better context. Would you rather that be done on the talk page or the article space?
And something has to be done with the duplicate image. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been a month and I went ahead and made some changes, expanding issues involving the Nashville Sound and removing some phrases or clauses that seemed out of place. One of these is the emphasis on Bill Porter. I'm not very familiar with him, admittedly, but I did find a source here that discusses the technological disconnect between music coming from Nashville and the rest of the country. The author linked there argues that the unwillingness of Nashville studios to get better equipment was partially responsible for the unique sound of country and crossover pop at the time. I don't understand how this can be with Porter's engineering adding so much to the sound. These sources seem to contradict each other. I'm not saying more of Porter can't go in the article, but we need to find a balance between the sources to word it accurately. You've added Porter's contributions to the article, so maybe you can answer that. --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Unclear

In the part about his second marriage, it mentions that his son by his first marriage was raised by "his parents". Does this mean Roy's parents I.e. the son's grand parents, or does it means that he was raised by Roy and Barbara? Wschart (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Orbison's parents raised Wesley. That is clearer now, I hope. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Meeting Barbara

This says he met her several days before his sons deaths - but her article says June which is several months. -- Beardo (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Orbison's mother's name and profession. (Yes, I'm talking to YOU!)

Dear unregsitered user with the various IP addresses,
Okay, people are calling your edits "vandalism" at this point. You keep changing the name and profession of Roy Orbison's mother, without citing any source. You've been asked to explain that. Ideally, you'd cite a source (which is done within the article) that says her name is what you say it is, since you're contradicting the public record and official biographic material.
If you're going to say that the public record is wrong, you need a source of your own, to back that up! (It does happen. For example, for a few years in the 1980s, various rock-oriented magazine articles reported that Cars guitarist Elliot Easton's birth name was Elliot Shapiro, when it's really Elliot Steinberg -- hey, at least they got his heritage right! -- and he's had to correct that in interviews with the rock media.)
If you can't, won't, or don't know how to cite a source within the article, you should explain yourself here on the Talk page, or, at the bare minimum, in the Edit Summary.
What you shouldn't be doing is . . . exactly what you are doing: Just bludgeoning away, trying to force your change into the article by sheer force of will, repeatedly, and unexplained. That's why, after several of your attempts to do this, the page is semi-protected, and you're being called a "vandal".
You may not like that. You may think it's unfair and untrue. After all, "vandalism" usually refers to rude, obscene or otherwise insulting material, and you clearly aren't doing that. Maybe you have good intentions, but you aren't acting like someone who does.
Are you new to Wikipedia? Are you very young? Maybe you just don't know the rules. Nobody wants to treat you like a vandal if you are sincerely trying to improve the article. Please, try to explain your change, here in response to this message -- or else, give up the fight.
By the way, I went for years without registering, but there are some real advantages of jumping in and doing it.
--Ben Culture (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jaundice removed

The statement about Orbison having jaundice has been removed with the claim that there is no proof. Looking at the text, it seems to be covered by the citation to p. 3 of Clayson. Thoughts? Can anyone with the book verify? --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In top billing with the Beatles?

In top billing with the Beatles? OR in top billing, with the Beatles?Brenont (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Orbison shades NOT Ray Ban Wayfarers?

Chances are that Orbison, just like JFK or Audrey Hepburn (as Holly Golightly), is another of those absorbed by the common myth-making or at least the misinterpretation that sunglasses of a certain shape are Ray Ban Wayfarers. According to the source below, Orbisons shades were by mexican company Faosa. http://faosaeyewear.com/Legends_In_Faosa_Eyeglasses.html 93.200.25.12 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nicknamed "the Big O"?

With reference to the first paragraph of the article, I ain't no scholar, but to me "The Big O" is Otis Redding. Did people actually call Orbison "Big O"? Jwicklatz (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, always Orbison, and never, in my experience, Redding. Rothorpe (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roy Orbison. 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) 16:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roy Orbison. 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) 03:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ This was a stage name that Orbison used as a part of the supergroup Traveling Wilburys.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Orbison/Archive_1&oldid=1137164645"