Talk:Creedence Clearwater Revival

Edit

I made a minor edit in the 'CCR in other media' section. I changed "This was only the third that a song not written by the crew of Stargate" to "This was only the third time that a song not written by the crew of Stargate"

Oxymoron 02 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Glastonbury

John Fogerty played at glastonbury, dunno if it was the whole band or not but might be good to add that if anyone knows.

Most famous song

I was wondering, when was "Have you ever seen the rain" released, wasn't it their most famous song?

Answer: "Have You Ever Seen The Rain?" was on the 1970 album, "Pendulum" their last album (I don't count "Mardi Gras") (Rogerd 03:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I would say Proud Mary was their most famous song, but there are so many, "Born On The Bayou", "Lookin' Out My Back Door", "Willie and the Poorboys", "Travelin' Band", "Fortunate Son", "Who'll Stop The Rain" (the other "Rain" song) were all famous, it would be hard to say which ones were the "most" famous (or at least second to "Proud Mary") (Rogerd 03:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I believe Fortunate Son is their most famous song because first it is in the movie Forrest Gump and second that's the song most people think about when they think about Vietnam. Just my pov but I like all the songs.

"Travelin' Band" and "Bad Moon Rising" are their most famous songs, espically outside the US. Maybe in the US it is "Proud Mary" followed by those, but outside the US "Proud Mary" is better know in it's versions by Elvis Presley and Tina Turner. 74.65.39.59 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Theres no way rate which song was their most famous. Theres at least five songs anyone can argue is their most popular song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.225.151 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

CCR TLA

Would anyone have a problem with moving CCR (disambiguation) to CCR, instead of the redirect to Creedence Clearwater Revival that is there currently? I'm a big CCR fan myself, but somehow I don't think they are that important that they warrant monopolizing that TLA. (Also, some very energetic soul must have gone through and fixed all the links to CCR, because there are basically none, and it would be nice not to waste all that effort! :-) Noel (talk) 21:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The CCR and CCR (disambiguation) pages are now merged into one. Engineer Bob 01:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Willy and the Poorboys" is not a song. In fact it is the fourth LP of CCR. Including Fortunate son and "Down on the corner" as hitsongs. released in 1969. produced by John Fogerty.

Band name

Does anyone have information what the band's name means? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 195.148.191.82 (talk • contribs) 14:02, June 4, 2005

I read once that it was just 3 unrelated words they put together. Clearwater came from a beer ad (probably Coors). I think they just liked the sound of it. --Rogerd 20:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creedence is from one of Tom Fogerty's co-workers, a South African man named Credence Nuball. Clearwater is a reference to the bands interest in the environment, and Revival refers to the commitment the four band members made to each other to try and make it to the big time. --bigboy99 00:00 AM 15 Dec (UTC)

Hmmm ... while looking up something entirely different, I have just found a reference in the Wiki article on the Second Great Awakening (early 19th century) that says ... "one of the early camp meetings [that is, a "revival meeting"] took place in July 1800 at Creedance Clearwater Church in southwestern Kentucky." This strikes me as a fairly plausible source for the band's name - more so than three random words, or a South African co-worker!

Plausible, yes. True, no. This has been the band's story since their first interview.

Liner notes from the Time/Life album "Creedence Clear Water" states that "clearwater" came from an anti-pollution commercial.148.85.226.251 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Golliwogs

I received a question as to why I unlinked "golliwogs" on this page. There is no existing article on The Golliwogs (CCRs original name) -- and in fact, that page is a redirect back to this article. The existing Golliwog article seems to have no special relevance to CCR, except perhaps to offer a possible explanation for the group's original name; if that is confirmed to be the case, I'd suggest that the sentence be edited to reflect that before the link is restored. Engineer Bob 19:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

According to an article on Ferris University's website, which draws from "A Brief History of CCR", the original band name came from the golliwog doll. They would sometimes perform "Brown-Eyed Girl" wearing afros, as a tribute to their namesake. There are other references, but that's the first one I came across. The original wording of the sentence shouldn't need to be changed; it clearly links to "golliwog", not "The Golliwogs". It's linked for informational purposes, to let readers know that the word "Golliwogs" wasn't just a nonsensical word.66.193.191.10 17:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Engineer Bob is right that the sentence could be clarified somehow, but I do think the link should be there somewhere. I don't agree that it should be noted as a "possible" origin of the name, though - I think it's pretty clear that they intended to use that specific name. Kafziel 18:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs -- I have restored the link to the Golliwogg article, with a parenthetical note. Engineer Bob 09:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

See also: Best selling music artists?

Although the subject list is in a constant state of flux, CCR currently occupies position number 271 (based on total units sold) -- so this cross reference seems a bit silly. Any objections to deleting this link? Engineer Bob 05:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The subject list is being considered for deletion, and as of tonight a vandal has deleted CCR from the list altogether. If I see no objections by this weekend, I plan to delete the link. Engineer Bob 01:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

More than a dollar short

God, the article is awfully short. Any CCR connoisseur who could improve this ?

Objectivity

No comment on objectivity? It pretty much is a hatchet job on John Fogerty. Sure the other guys wanted a say in the "financial side" of things. They wanted an equal cut without doing any of the work. Needs to be more balanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.52.194 (talk • contribs) 11:22, October 4, 2006 (UTC)

I'll second the comment on objectivity. I'd like to see Fogerty's side of the arguments represented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.47.63 (talk • contribs) 13:25, February 4, 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Fogerty has never denied this version, while the remaining band members have stood by it for over 25 years.

Unclear referent

In the history section,

"Many have speculated that Fogerty did this in anticipation of poor sales, in order to prove to brother Tom (and the rest of world) that his songwriting had always been the real commercial talent behind the band's success."

The "his" is an unclear referent (John or Tom?). I would fix it, but I'm not a CCR maven and don't know myself. Skanar 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that it's pretty clear; "Many have speculated that Fogerty did this in anticipation of poor sales, in order to prove to brother Tom"... just put "he" in place of the "Fogerty" and you'll see why... "he" did it to prove to brother Tom.

Suzie Q

I recently purchased a CCR "Greatest Hits" CD that included "Suzie Q." But I was most disappointed to discover that the song version on the CD doesn't include the inter-verse guitar bridge that I'd always considered the most notable part of the song!  :-(

Is there more than one version of this song out there, and if so, how do I determine which version is on a given CD before I buy it? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

"Suzie Q" was originally released as a two-part single. Part one got the airplay. What you heard was in part two. The full 8:34 version is from their self-titled first album from 1968.[1] Steelbeard1 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Who'll Stop the Rain

The links on this page to "Who'll Stop the Rain" go to an article about the movie, not the song itself. It's a well-enough known song; I think it deserves its own page. But at the very least, the link(s) here should be removed as they do not actually reference the song itself, but rather a movie titled after the song. 66.17.118.207 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"After CCR" the longest section in a CCR article?

It doesn't seem appropriate that by far the largest section of the CCR article is on life "After CCR." Perhaps a lot of that material could be moved to the John Fogerty article, and this article could be linked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.28.212 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It may not seem to be at first, but it is. The "Life after CCR" bit is not just about John Fogerty. It contains a lot of information on lawsuits over CCR's music with the record label and how they are still well revered today (with lifetime awards, etc, etc). The parts that mention some of John's after achievements should not be deleted just to shorten this section. 74.65.39.59 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think, however, that the things not specifically pertaining to CCR, such as the individual members' solo careers, should perhaps be summarized with links to their own wikipedia pages. 70.22.232.141 19:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Run Through The Jungle

I'd swear I remember reading that this song was not about the Vietnam War at all, despite that being the common misconception. I remember that "he" (John Fogerty I guess) wrote this song after reading a statistic that there were 200 million privately owned guns in the US, and that that is what the song is about. I'm too lazy to look this stuff up though, so if someone else wants to, thanks.

Ok, well, I looked it up. I found this, though I don't know where he said it and to whom: '"I think a lot of people thought that because of the times, but I was talking about America and the proliferation of guns, registered and otherwise. I'm a hunter and I'm not antigun, but I just thought that people were so gun-happy -- and there were so many guns uncontrolled that it really was dangerous, and it's even worse now. It's interesting that it has taken 20-odd years to get a movement on that position."

John Fogerty on "Run Through the Jungle"'

-so I removed the part about the song being a Vietnam protest song. Insert non-formatted text here

Bowling Team

Is there any evidence to back up someone I know saying that he remembers when Creedence was just a bowling team that turned into a high school band?

Really a worthy link?

I don't think the "CCR and Political Page" should be included in the list. Seems to have little CCR information (over any number of other fansites). Although, maybe I've missed it's significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.204.185 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Shared vocals on "Suzie Q."?

On the Creedence Clearwater Revival album description, there's a reference that "Suzie Q." features John and Tom Fogerty on vocals. What is the source for this information? I've read countless bios on Creedence and never once have I read that Suzie Q. was a shared vocal effort between the Fogertys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an incorrect reference. John was he only lead singer in Creedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.157.243 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper production credit info

Shouldn't use CDs from the 90s/2000s as sources for production info. I don't see any of the original engineers listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is too long

All sections in this article are too long.

• Heyday the most important section appears to just be a list of singles and releases. Decline and fall is a little long. After CCR is ridiculous.

I propose shortening Decline and fall and splitting it into at least two sections.

• One could be after CCR
• the other could be Legacy or something, which could include accolades and reformation rumours. Most of the information in this section should be in the individual members pages.

• CCR in other media should probably be got rid of all together. Although i can understand keeping some of the film acknowledgements, only when they use CCR in a bold manner, or in a way that is important to the films theme.

Chadwholovedme (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Try reading a little faster. It's CCR! The story stops and starts in ways a writer couldn't think of.Oh2kaybec —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.157.243 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs a substantial rewrite and more photos. 68Kustom (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Smoothed it out some.

I got rid of a LOT of the distracting off-topic information and unneeded links. (The article doesn't need links to "urn" and "blood transfusion".) Also reduced the wordiness, passive language, and poor historicity (timeline problems and excessive contemporary solo career info) which were dragging the piece down.

I did add pertinent information about music, touring, and background. It was a lot of work, so I hope everyone likes it. 68Kustom (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. I did correct an obvious goof and added a new entry. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured America's best band deserved it. But what did I mess up? Dang, thought I thought of everything ... WAIT, it was PBS to NET, wasn't it? I got the "PBS" from Fogerty's interview on VH1's Legends in 1998. Good eye. I guess the Refs section is next, huh?68Kustom (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored to fixed version.

Somebody sent the article back into redundancy, so I had to restore it.

The article doesn't need a heading "Band History" since the article IS a band history. Also, sub-headings are confusing as they add another 'edit' link right under the main heading. Redundant and they add only empty space (and bytes).

I think the layout is fine as it is now. Adding headings and reworking titles to suit individual taste won't work, since the article was re-done with mass readership and readability well in mind. Thanks! 68Kustom (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your restore undid many valid edits and violated several Wikipedia guidelines for layout and format. Perhaps you should brush up on some of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines so you won't make anymore unencyclopedic errors. 142.167.92.127 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. I didn't know "guidelines" were rules. The terms aren't interchangeable, going by my dictionary. Anyway, please, when you undertake to edit a page, explain your reasoning to everyone, like I did. The only "valid edits" I saw were your notion of a good heading title which, to me as a writer, were amateurish. Perhaps it's time Wikipedia looked at less-unwieldy heading formats. It's all about improvement isn't it? Nothing's perfect. <shrug> 68Kustom (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, why does the "See Also" section have only Creedence Clearwater Revisited present? They're mentioned previously in the article, but any added links to Fogerty articles keep vanishing. Hmmm. 68Kustom (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to nip this emerging edit war in the bud. I suggest before deleting suspect edits to insert a citation request (i.e.) and see if a verifiable citation is inserted. If not, the disputed material can then be deleted. Also, in order for an editor to be taken seriously, he or she should have a Wikipedia username instead of hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Oh, BTW, the anonymous poster is correct about the format of headings. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"have a user account to be taken seriously"???? And Steelbeard is the name that appears on your drivers license too... PLEASE!... Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" and "anyone" means that Anons are equal to any user account. Sorry to have to break that little tidbit to you but that's just the way it is. That is the entire philosophy of Wikipedia and if you have a problem with it... then you need to find a new hobby. I had over 20000 edits with a user account before I decided to reject the username for the purity of anonymous editing. I have over 30000 more edits as an IP and would never return to the make-belive name I used to use. The "anti-anon" attitude that runs rampant among some editors is a sad situation for Wikipedia. 68Kustom seems to think that his POV is above WP:POL and WP:MOS and WP:GUIDE.. etc. These links, and the links contained therein are not just for show. They promote consistency within the entire project. They aren't to be ignored. Thousands of new editors appear everyday and undo the proper formatting on countless pages undoing the work done by veteran editors. 68Kustom's blunders were undone with very clear edit summaries. Also... yes it is polite to simply tag new content with a {cite needed} tag and be patient. But if the new content added is completely stupid, useless or contradicts the already existing/cited content... then it is perfectly OK to simply turf the added text and quote the appropriate policy/guideline in the edit summary. As for the question about the see also section. All the other "see alsos" were removed because they were redundant... example... why add John Fogerty to the see also section??? he's already linked a half dozen times or more throughout the rest of the article. It was simply a superfluity clean.

Then somebody clean out CCRev in "See Also"! I question the half-measure--either put all the redundant refs in "See Also", or leave them all out. (It's a modern problem: indecisiveness and excessive compromise.) Now on to better things. My "POV" comes from experience: there's a right way, a wrong way, and an accepted way. Wikipedia's 'accepted' way is that its subheadings format forces a redundant 'edit' link under the main heading, which also forces an edit link. Thus, an overzealous editor in love with creating headings can disrupt the flow--the readability--of an article (heading 'edit', subheading 'edit', 'edit' until you yank your hair out). The "consistency" you uphold may also cause problems in flow. Just because it's Wikipedia and the Internet doesn't make the system correct or perfectly workable. I know when a format's workable and when it's not. Stay objective! 68Kustom (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

156.34.226.160 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While I have no problem with anonymous posters who make positive changes, I've had bad experience with anonymous posters who make negative edits and cause edit wars. But the main reason to get a username is that IP addresses are easily traceable. I already know that you're a Canadian and a Bell Aliant customer by looking up your IP address. By getting a Wikipedia username, you can protect your privacy. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And beyond that, I am a very well known IP who is a librarian in an Eastern Canadian University. Most editors who frequent music related article know who I am and a number of admins have nicknamed me 'Libs' or 'Libsey'. My static IP page is tickled with a number of barnstars for my contributions here. Anyone can invent a username (many people abuse/game the system with more than one). I am easy to find. It's like admin Wiki alf says... IPs who are positive contributors are more credible than any user account... simply because of the traceability. That being said... I revert hundreds of IP vandals per day. But I also revert just as many new "red link" vandal only user accounts too. It's just better to go with the idea that "anyone can edit" means just that... "anyone". And with a combined user/anon edit count that recently rolled over 50000... I am a busy anyone. :D . 156.34.226.160 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, fix vandalism. But please don't flaunt wild opinions like "IPs who are positive contributors are more credible than any user account". In the great Internet boondoggle, nobody's really credible. GRIN 68Kustom (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've uncovered the antagonist in this edit war and it is 68Kustom. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate rule/guideline links have been provided in several edit summaries but, so far, have been ignored. If it happens again I will post to one of my admin buddies to intervene. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

The link added to the infobox and to the EL section doesn't have any legal information showing any authenticity/permission or official status. If it is a fansite, and it looks like one, then it fails wp:el and will be removed until some validity can be shown that it is an official/authorised site. 156.34.226.160 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro

I began work on the intro, adding note worthiness and leaving out their full instrument/vocal credits which are covered later in the article. I also put in appropriate cites needed markers. I'll will work on the red linked songs later on if no one else does. Kresock (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I bit the bullet and put back subheadings with the important years listed. If we don't have that, the article runs on and on. There's a lot of pertinent info and, since we're writing a 'History', the individual and important years in the band's career should head the sections. Otherwise, it's a tiring read. That is a standard, tried-and-true format used in textbooks and encyclopedias. 68Kustom (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's looking better. Citations where the {cite needed} tags are should be found quickly since, in current unref'd form, it sounds very POV amateurish. Lead-ins read better when they don't push peacocks and accolades. That being said Wiki music pages are overflowing with cruft. I've been here for 4 years... I've yet to see one that looks perfect although some of the leads in the Beatles related articles aren't too bad. The Pink Floyd page is a featured article and even its lead-in has a bit a "trivia decay" in it.(I won't pick on it too much... in it's infancy I helped write it :D ). 156.34.226.160 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I put the cite tags in so others would look them over (as you did) and hopefully edit/change/ditch those sentences as needed. Whenever I add an album cover to those music pages you mentioned I look over their intros also, which in most cases is all that page will have besides a track listing. If I can I add to them I do, and move the stuff obviously not belonging in intros further south. But I try to keep the edits of others too, and its not easy to balance that out! Kresock (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Think you gotta keep an eye on your writing. You've got a run-on sentence, missing comma, comma splices, and the intro is still generally muddled. At least after two years the band's article is getting some attention. Watch for my touch-up and see what you think. 68Kustom (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Um, is that photo right? It doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMALevin (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Drugs

In the "Legacy" part: "Unlike most other rock artists of the day, they eschewed drug use"... What? This article seems to be written by some one who has only listened to CCR's Greatest Compilations and such and is not familiar with songs like Born to Move. But even the compilations usually include Lookin' Out My Back Door, and if that song is not about hallucinogens, then what is? Epifanes (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Personnel?

Isn't that a bit...clinical? How about lineup or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.228.231 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Roots rock

This band is not properly described as "roots rock" in the lead sentence. Find a viable reference to claim otherwise. Rollingstone refers to them only as a "rock band" while allmusic mentions neither roots, nor swamp. Additionally, "roots rock" did not exist as a genre when the band was active. The lead sentence needs the word "roots" removed. - Steve3849 ^talk 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The current sources have nothing to do with the article. The prior sources a week ago were a blog and a personal geocities page. Music Project guidelines states lack of references to be "Start Class". - Steve3849 ^talk 00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Discography

Hello. Just a heads-up that I have acquired chart positions from Cashbox and added them, as well as the labels & numbers of the original U.S. pressings, to the CCR discography. I will be adding more Cashbox chart information to other discographies in the future. Half the fun is comparing these chart positions to the Billboard positions to see if they charted higher, lower, the same, or even not at all.

Any corrections, additions or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks