Talk:The Turtles

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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)[reply]

Discography?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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]

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