Talk:The Turtles

Argh... I tried to make an infobox for the band.. Hmm.. A few errors that I don't feel like fixing as its 5 o'clock in the morning in Copenhagen. Somebody can well clean up after me... HA! TheEsb 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Discography?

Why is there no discography here? --65.10.223.211 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Album Cover

Why are we using an album cover for their picture. And where's the discography. And why is this article still so small even though the band are 30 years old? And why the heck is there no source for the old name. Thundermaster367 13:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

History

What exactly makes any song "adorable"; and, more specifically, why does "Can I Get to Know You Better" qualify?

What about more recent history? The original lead singers were doing oldies concerts as recently as the early 2000s, using their real names and referencing The Turtles throughout. Apparently, they decided they no longer cared about that ancient contract and were almost daring someone to do something about it. --64.129.227.4 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned comment re: reverted edit

Stop wasting people's time. The version you undid removes several errors. For example, the notion that The Turtles have any relation to psychedelia is ridiculous. Nor do they have anything to do with the so-called 'bubblegum' style of music which came a bit later. You wanted a reason, you got one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.21 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to unsigned comment

Stop wasting people's time.

Kindly explain this arguable personal attack, and definite assumption of bad faith. Whose time did I waste, reverting what appears to be an unproductive edit?

The version you undid removes several errors.

And replaces them with... what? I saw no facts in place of the "errors". I only see text removed, not replaced by better text, or any indication that less is more, in this case. (I'm not saying the article doesn't need some work, but this does not appear to me to be the way to do it; the edits look more arbitrary, than anything.)

For example, the notion that The Turtles have any relation to psychedelia is ridiculous.

By whose definition? The article text itself (before and after this recent edit) describes "She's My Girl" as "psychedelic", for just one example. There were touches of psychedelia on "You Know What I Mean", "The Last Thing I Remember" from Battle of the Bands, and the single version of "Chicken Little Was Right"... and these are just the Turtles records I can think of offhand, that fit the description. The page's (still unedited) infobox plainly states "psychedelic rock", also. (So much for the ridicule... and the "example", IMHO.)

Nor do they have anything to do with the so-called 'bubblegum' style of music which came a bit later.

What is "so-called" about bubblegum pop? It is a recognized music genre, contemporary to the Turtles (late 1960s/early 1970s), and several of the Turtles' songs arguably fit that description, also. (Though the band was more prone to parody the genre than follow it: "Elenore" was written as a joke, and both the record company and most of the listening public missed it.)

You wanted a reason, you got one.

I did not ask for a "reason"; Wikipedia guidelines call for a summary of edits made. The last edit gave none, and I simply noted this. I find it hard to believe someone would so fervently defend editing that is not their own. Is it yours? If so, editing from more than one location, unregistered, is unwise, and adds nothing to your credibility. Neither does your attitude reflected here... nor do the numerous warning notices I see on your talk page... presuming you have ever looked at it (or them) yourself. I will set my edit history against yours, anytime. If these edits are not your own, I say let the editor who did them speak up for himself (or herself)... and what are you so concerned about? Have a nice day. Zephyrad (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to reply

I didn’t mean to attack you personally. I was, and am, frustrated that I’d spend some time on this and you come along and wipe it out. My changes improved the piece and there was nothing arbitrary about them. It isn’t important to replace errors with facts, as you claim. Removing an error is sufficient in itself. In what respect are any of the songs you mentioned psychedelic? They are pop songs. What harmonic structure, chord, melody line, or instrumentation appears psychedelic to you in “She’s My Girl” or “You Know What I Mean”? Show me, please, specifically what you think you’re talking about. Both songs are a bit more complex either in terms of some of the chords used or the time signatures. I suspect that is what you’re hearing and mistaking for psychedelia.

As for this arbitrary connection you posited between bubblegum music and the standard pop fare of The Turtles, Stravinsky was writing music at the same time The Turtles were recording it. Does that mean there is a relationship between the two styles? Again, please be specific about what you believe is a bubblegum style in the Turtles music. “Elenore” is not a good example, either harmonically, in terms of arrangement, or (as you point out) in terms of it’s ironic set of lyrics which were purposely intended as a series of clichés. The edits are my own. The “warning” notices you mentioned have to do someone else who used this laptop prior to me. It's possible that several people had access to this laptop prior to me. I post very little here. Only a couple threads. Next time, try not to make assumptions about people. You started off saying you felt personally attacked, and I explained to you that I was coming from a place of frustration with having perfectly valid edits reversed and challenged in the way you've chosen to challenge them. You've also gotten more than a little personal, no?

The irony here is that this entry is terrible and could be much improved. There is a ton of information I would like to add to it, specifically about the way in which the group's music changed over time, but I'm wary of doing so because someone like yourself will come along afterward and remove it.

Again, please provide a specific example of where you claim the Turtles records contained aspects of psychedelia. Simply naming a song and asserting it contains this or that isn’t providing an example. I’d like to know specifically what you mean.

A more interesting, and accurate, point to make about “You Know What I Mean” is that it doesn’t have a hook. Nevertheless, Mark Volman described the song as “probably the most important record I feel we ever made.” He also wrote “In terms of song-to-record translation, probably the best Turtles record ever made.” This is the sort of level of detail which is missing in the entire post about the group, and if you had behaved like a gentleman and asked me why I edited out a few changes – whether you consider them arbitrary or not – rather than simply undo them, I would have been happy to discuss them with you. Perhaps you would have changed my mind.

It’s odd that you would write that you would set your edit history against mine anytime. Is this a competition? I thought the point was to provide accurate information about the topic at hand.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to reply to reply

I didn’t mean to attack you personally.

Perhaps not, but that is how you came across, and continue to do. Statements such as "Stop wasting people's time" and "what you think you're talking about" don't exactly come across as friendliness, or willingness to consider another person's views.

I was, and am, frustrated that I’d spend some time on this and you come along and wipe it out.

Happens to me all the time, on here. If you're going to edit for Wikipedia, I'd say get used to it... and not just from me. I have no personal agenda toward you.

My changes improved the piece

Again, how?

and there was nothing arbitrary about them.

Perhaps not, but I find it odd that you would remove "psychedelic" from the main text, and not from the infobox, if you feel so strongly about this. That made the changes look arbitrary.

It isn’t important to replace errors with facts, as you claim. Removing an error is sufficient in itself.

Not according to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, which I strongly suggest you read, if you wish to continue editing. Your flying blind here is just going to lead to frustration, all around.

In what respect are any of the songs you mentioned psychedelic? They are pop songs.

More reviews of the Turtles' music than I can count or list here (including album jackets and CD booklets) describe them as "psychedelic" in style. Not my determination... and could you name some psychedelic songs that could not also be described as pop?

What harmonic structure, chord, melody line, or instrumentation appears psychedelic to you in “She’s My Girl” or “You Know What I Mean”? Show me, please, specifically what you think you’re talking about.

By this same token, what "harmonic structure, chord, melody line, or instrumentation" must be met for you to consider a song "psychedelic"? Would one more key or time-signature change turn a non-psychedelic song into a psychedelic one? Two more? Would an orchestral arrangement of "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" with vocals by a famous ballad singer still meet your apparent definition of the term?

Both songs are a bit more complex either in terms of some of the chords used or the time signatures.

Which adds up to... what? Both the chords and the time-signatures used are pretty standard musically. (I have the published sheet music to both those songs, as it happens.) Agreed, the chord progression to at least "You Know What I Mean" is pretty unusual. All the same, is it less or more "psychedelic" than, say, "White Rabbit", "Incense And Peppermints", or even "Daily Nightly"?

I suspect that is what you’re hearing and mistaking for psychedelia.

You apparently assume that I wrote the content that was removed. Bad assumption, I'd say; I did not.

As for this arbitrary connection you posited between bubblegum music and the standard pop fare of The Turtles,

Not my writing (again), not my "position", and not my opinion. Check those reviews. White Whale wanted hits, and bubblegum was in vogue. The Turtles bucked the trend, and the pressure, and I think you missed my point.

Stravinsky was writing music at the same time The Turtles were recording it. Does that mean there is a relationship between the two styles?

My old Debate prof would likely call this an "irrelevant example". And so would I. Did they record each other's works, or works in each other's styles?

“Elenore” is not a good example, either harmonically, in terms of arrangement, or (as you point out) in terms of it’s ironic set of lyrics which were purposely intended as a series of clichés.

I pointed out "Elenore" as an example of the Turtles mocking what they were expected to deliver, and the "irony" I'd say is that the record company missed the joke, and got behind the record. How do the arrangement and harmonies (harmonics? Not sure what you're getting at) keep the song from being taken on the surface as "bubblegum"?

The edits are my own. The “warning” notices you mentioned have to do someone else who used this laptop prior to me. It's possible that several people had access to this laptop prior to me.

All the more reason to create an account. Wikipedia notes edits based on IP addresses, not individual computers. If you did not make the edits in question, I'd say don't worry about them... or the relevant notices.

Next time, try not to make assumptions about people.

Next time, please take your own advice? And again, do read those guidelines.

You started off saying you felt personally attacked

What I "feel" does not matter here. The tone in your reply reflects a personal attack (did you follow the link, there?), rather than legitimate defense of your changes.

I explained to you that I was coming from a place of frustration with having perfectly valid edits reversed and challenged in the way you've chosen to challenge them.

By my doing what any editor would be prone to do, in the event of seeing what appear to be nonconstructive edits? Again, I'd say get used to having your edits challenged (and rolled back if they don't come with at least a token summary), if you're going to write here. Not my thing; it's an everyday event around here.

You've also gotten more than a little personal, no?

No. I have simply stated (and reiterated) normal Wikipedia standards and expectations, and asked some legitimate (and sometimes rhetorical) questions. You admit you rarely edit here. I do so more frequently, and am more familiar with what's expected, from the sound of things. Not a boast, but a plain fact.

The irony here is that this entry is terrible and could be much improved.

No irony there; the article does need work, as I alluded to above. (Describing its current state as "terrible" is not going to win you any fans, either.) Simply removing content, especially as an unregistered user working from multiple addresses, is not the best way to go about this, if even a good way to do so.

There is a ton of information I would like to add to it, specifically about the way in which the group's music changed over time, but I'm wary of doing so because someone like yourself will come along afterward and remove it.

Again, bad assumption. If you can make points and back them up with references (if not formal ones, at least "in Yadayada magazine, So-and-so recalled...") I'd be happy to support your changes.

Again, please provide a specific example of where you claim the Turtles records contained aspects of psychedelia. Simply naming a song and asserting it contains this or that isn’t providing an example. I’d like to know specifically what you mean.

Try the liner notes to their 20 Greatest Hits ("the group's newfound interest in psychedelia", "the band was heavily influenced by the Sgt. Pepper, psychedelic period",) or The Battle of the Bands ("the psychedelic 'The Last Thing I Remember'") albums, from Rhino Records, for two.

A more interesting, and accurate, point to make about “You Know What I Mean” is that it doesn’t have a hook.

Arguable. The sung lines "You know what I mean" and "Do you know what I mean?" qualify, IMHO.

Nevertheless, Mark Volman described the song as “probably the most important record I feel we ever made.” He also wrote “In terms of song-to-record translation, probably the best Turtles record ever made.” This is the sort of level of detail which is missing in the entire post about the group,

Can you back those statements up with references? I'm not saying they don't exist, or that he never said those things, but Wikipedia is getting stricter with such matters. (I wish I had the time to add specific refs to every last statement I add on here; I am hoping others will fill the gaps I cannot, and not simply delete statements, as with yourself.)

and if you had behaved like a gentleman and asked me why I edited out a few changes – whether you consider them arbitrary or not – rather than simply undo them, I would have been happy to discuss them with you. Perhaps you would have changed my mind.

From your overall tone, I sorta doubt that. And how was I not a "gentleman" here? If every nonconstructive edit or incidence of vandalism (again, not saying you did that) on here had to be formally questioned and explained before it was reverted, I doubt very much would get done on Wikipedia, or that it would last very long. (And I can just imagine the answers that would come to "Why did you replace a 30,000-byte article with the word 'poop'?", if we had to do that. - This also happens every day.)

It’s odd that you would write that you would set your edit history against mine anytime. Is this a competition? I thought the point was to provide accurate information about the topic at hand.

Nothing "odd" about it. I did so because a registered user with a long edit history is likely to carry more weight than an unregistered part-time remover of content, who edits from numerous addresses. The only "competition" I see is to make better articles, and make articles better. Replacing inaccurate data with accurate data will go farther than simply removing things you don't like or agree with, and a brief (but valid) summary is far better than none at all. Zephyrad (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment via Wikiquette alerts

The standard way round this kind of dispute is definitely to work on the requirement that Wikipedia requires basing on cited sources per WP:V. Arguing from personal knowledge what The Turtles were or weren't isn't productive. Currently, it would be perfectly fair to remove most of the article as unsourced. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

The standard way round this kind of dispute is definitely to work on the requirement that Wikipedia requires basing on cited sources per WP:V.

Agreed. Can we persuade this unregistered user to follow this convention and others? Again, I would sooner see weaker text replaced with stronger, and an unregistered user to register, if he feels so strongly about this or other matters. Wholesale removal of text is just going to leave gaps. I have expressed my concern also, that this article needs improvement, more than once.

Arguing from personal knowledge what The Turtles were or weren't isn't productive.

Agreed also. His removals were (so far) based on just that: personal knowledge, and suppositions. I will support changes that are backed up with sources.

Currently, it would be perfectly fair to remove most of the article as unsourced.

Perhaps... but would this render a service, or a disservice, to someone who comes to Wikipedia looking for information about the band? Will it encourage this user to register and follow Wikipedia norms and expectations, or to continue simply removing content he does not personally agree with, and snapping at other editors? I reiterate: I made the reverts I made to bring attention to the fact that an unregistered user is deleting content, and not giving summaries as expected of any editor. (I am one of the quickest to remove POV when I see it, but I replace it with more objective text, and add references when possible.) Zephyrad (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro for sourcing

The Turtles were an American pop, psychedelic and folk rock band, defined by a good-natured, joyously melancholic and occasionally cheeky sound. A precursor to the bubblegum pop of the late 1960s and a foil to the more self-consciously hip and "serious" acts of the era, the Turtles produced at least a dozen memorable, radio-friendly chart singles but remain best known for 1967's "Happy Together" with Howard Kaylan on vocals

Can we have sources for italicised bits of the summary? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to zeph

You wrote it is “arguable” that ‘You Know What I Mean’ doesn’t have a hook. I’m reporting what Mr. Volman wrote about the song, and I think that’s an interesting detail. To anticipate your next question, yes, I could provide a reference for it. Regarding the quotes, you asked if I could back those up with references. Yes, I could do that too.

Why didn’t I remove ‘psychedelic’ from the infobox? I didn’t see it.

I appreciate Gordon’s comments.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.22 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that

Well, it'd smooth things over if you did. I've no problem with the substance of your edits; but it is the convention to explain.

The stuff you deleted certainly deserved to go. Band articles tend to be full of this quasi-NME critique and framing that has no place here unless it's sourced. For example, if some third-party is on record as saying Happy Together "seemed almost a parody of itself", that's fine. If it's just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, that's not.

There's an online link to the Rough Guide to Rock entry for The Turtles that'd make a good start as third-party sourcing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to gordon

There you go, Gordon. I just didn't understand the convention of explaining edits. Sounds perfectly reasonable. Take care.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.21 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The other convention to remember is signing comments on Talk pages. You just put four tildes ~~~~ and the signature and time/date are automatically generated. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Tucker

Can someone remove the links to his name. It goes to some doctor of the same name and thats not him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.4.127 (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Did that, and raised the question of how he and another Jim Tucker should be handled, for their own entries. Zephyrad (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously misguided & opinionated sentence

I deleted the following sentence because it's mostly opinion (aka unverified claims) and is moreover very very wrong.

"With its incessant and infectious guitar riff, addictive chorus and backing vocals, simple drum and organ parts, and even an oboe playing along during the second chorus, "Happy Together" is perhaps the quintessential example of fresh, feel-good 1960s American pop despite its somewhat ironic tone and the fact that its verses are in a minor key."

"Happy Together" is neither infectious, addictive, or ironic. ("Invest a dime" is a cliche, not irony.) And it is most emphatically not a quintessential feel-good song. It makes me want to retch and I'm not alone. It sold a lot of records, but dozens of other Top 10 hits could make the claim to be quintessentially feel-good. It would be equally appropriate and unverified to claim that it is the most saccharine song evar. 66.32.85.185 (talk)