Talk:Journey (band)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Journey (band). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
More vandalism
I took the liberty of removing some really obvious vandalism from the formation section. There's also this sentence, which should certainly be edited in some way: "The original members of Journey came together in San Francisco in 1973 under the auspices of former Santana manager Herbie Herbert." If someone could make this sentence look the way it's supposed to, that would be grand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.103 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Opening Line, Santana, and Frumious Bandersnatch
It has just occurred to me that because the founding members of Journey included as many former members of Frumious Bandersnatch as Santana (not counting the manager), the first sentence of the entry either has too much or too little information. Notwithstanding the fact that the typical lay reader has heard of Santana but not Frumious Bandersnatch, "Journey is an American rock band formed in 1973 in San Francisco by former members of Santana" should either include Frumious Bandersnatch also, or include neither band. Here are three proposals for a new first sentence; let's hear what the other editors like. Feel free to add your own.
Proposal One: "Journey is an American rock band formed in 1973 in San Francisco by former members of Santana and Frumious Bandersnatch."
Proposal Two: "Journey is an American rock band formed in 1973 in San Francisco." Probably the most "wikipedia style" option.
Proposal Three: "Journey is an American rock band formed in 1973 in San Francisco by former members of Santana and Frumious Bandersnatch and the former manager of Santana." Probably too wordy for an opening sentence.
Dave Golland (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like we're going with proposal one. Fine with me. Dave Golland (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Associated Acts
The "associated acts" section of the infobox may be getting a bit out of hand. Jefferson Starship, where former Journey member Aynsley Dunbar played from 1978-1982, seems a bit of a stretch for inclusion. The same seems true of John Waite, who has former bands in common with current Journey members (The Babys and Bad English), but no current or former Journey member ever played with him in his solo career. I think the list should be limited to current and former members' solo acts, former bands of current Journey members, and current bands of former Journey members. From the current list, these would include The Babys, Bad English, Frumious Bandersnatch, The Gregg Rolie band, Hardline, Steve Perry, Santana, The Storm, Vital Information, and the Zoo. It would eliminate Jefferson Starship, John Waite, Tall Stories, The Tubes, and Tyketto. What do you think, fellow editors? Dave Golland (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
With this in mind I'm adding Abraxas Pool and Soul SirkUS. Dave Golland (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
And alphabetizing (Rolie, Perry, Waite). Dave Golland (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with all above, except not really The Zoo, though Hagar Schon Aaronson Shrieve, maybe (one album). Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Discographer! I agree that Hagar Schon Aaronson Shrieve should go in (as "HSAS," IMO). Also Schon & Hammer, once someone creates such a page (currently there are album pages but no "Schon & Hammer" page). Let me defend inclusion of The Zoo: a current member of Journey is a former member of The Zoo (Arnel Pineda). I would argue for consistency, for the purpose of having an easy-to-understand rule. When Pineda leaves Journey to go solo, we would drop The Zoo. By the same token, if Augeri rejoins Tall Stories, we would include it--as it would then be the current band of a former Journey member. Dave Golland (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, since no one else has weighed in, I'll go ahead and remove Jefferson Starship, John Waite, Tall Stories and Tyketto. (Keeping The Tubes as former Journey member Prairie Prince is still a current member of The Tubes.) This is by no means intended to stop discussion of this topic, and if the consensus changes we can certainly reverse or amend this change. Dave Golland (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dave, concerning The Tubes, Vital Information and The Zoo, I myself wouldn't include them beacause only one member of Journey happened to be in these (representing an individual issue, not a group one), and therefore the band is technically not asociated with Journey itself, just that member. Even though Steve Smith was in that jazz-fusion band, does not make it Journey-associated. The lay-out my friend should be that a band must include at least two members of Journey in order for asociation. I know you have Journey connections, however realistically, this is best defined as is. Please keep in mind any harmonious connections as true as can be to one another! Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, a simple rule which keeps the list short and sweet. Also eliminates The Babys, HSAS, Steve Perry, and The Gregg Rolie Band. Reduces the list of associated acts to: Abraxas Pool, Bad English, Frumious Bandersnatch, Hardline, Schon & Hammer (I'm creating that page but I need more refs for it), Santana, Soul SirkUS, and The Storm. Dave Golland (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
So, correct me of I'm wrong, the consensus of the two of us (for now) is that the rule should be:
Journey's "Associated Acts" shall consist of musical acts whose current or past members include at least two current or past members of Journey, and current solo acts of current and former Journey members. My feeling is that for the purposes of this rule, only full Journey members should count, not touring or recording members.
Dave Golland (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Excellant! So, Dave, associated acts will be...
- Sounds good! Best, --Discographer (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Shall we use chronological (your list) or alphabetical (my list) order? I don't care either way. Dave Golland (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Great! The associated acts we've agreed upon Dave, as unamimous consensus, we'll implement as permanent settings, if you don't mind, that is, lest something new comes along, needed to be added. Looking forward to Schon & Hammer also, as that second album is very much Journey-esque. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
My first attempt to create the Schon & Hammer page was rejected for a dearth of sources. I've added ten sources and resubmitted; we'll see what happens. I've never created a Wikipedia page from scratch before, only edited existing pages. Dave Golland (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The guidelines found here Template:Infobox musical artist should help you with making your decisions. Providing all of the artists listed above have 2+ members in common, and/or have collaborated with Journey on more than one occasion, there will be no reason for that list to change. Chronology is not an issue as far as I'm aware. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've just given the list of associated acts agreed upon here a once-over, they're all fine to remain, all of them meet the guidelines. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Potentially controversial application of the new rule for "Associated acts"
"Steve Perry" as an "act" is basically defunct as the former Journey lead singer hasn't released a solo recording or performed his solo show live in nearly two decades (For the Love of Strange Medicine, 1994). He should obviously remain in the "Past members" section of the infobox, but I think it's somewhat disingenuous to keep him in the "Associate acts" section as well. It should fall under the "former band of former member" category and be removed. If SP were to release a recording (even a single song on someone else's album) or make a live solo appearance (even as a guest on a single date of someone else's tour) then obviously he would be restored to "Associated acts," as "Steve Perry" would be the current act/band of a former member. But until/unless he does, "Steve Perry" as an act is the former act of a former member, and should not be under "Associated acts" any more than Jefferson Starship or Tall Stories.
I realize that this might cause more controversy, which is why I am suggesting we discuss this under separate heading from the previous discussion of "Associated acts."
I mean no disrespect to Steve Perry himself or his fans; after all, I too am a Steve Perry fan and if he were both willing and able to rejoin Journey I'd be one of the first to buy tickets to any appearance or copies of any CD that would come out of such a reunion. But I think that if we are to set a firm rule limiting the definition of "Associated acts," we have to consider that "Steve Perry" the act is defunct (even though "Steve Perry" the person is still very much a living former band member).
Dave Golland (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no issue to be had here. Regardless of whether an associated act is active or not, if they meet the criteria they should be included. However, Steve DOES NOT meet the criteria required for an artist to be categorized as an "associated act". The guidelines (which can be found at Template:Infobox musical artist) clearly state that the field is not to include an "association of groups with members' solo careers". Henceforth, Steve Perry is not an associated act of Journey, and should not be listed as such. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Journey 2011 by Travis Shinn.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Journey 2011 by Travis Shinn.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Journey 2011 by Travis Shinn.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
Status of former members (part 2)
Following a previous discussion (see Talk:Journey (band)/Archive 1#Status of former members) I feel certain issues have not been addressed. Reviewing the response left to my query, I understand the logic that has been implemented so far. However I feel that there is still an issue to be addressed in that how the musicians are listed currently on what they've done with the band (i.e. recording and touring = member, recording or touring or neither = not member) as opposed to official status granted by the band.
To illustrate my point let's look at an example: Hugh McDonald has been the bass player for Bon Jovi since 1994. In this time he has recorded multiple albums with the band and has been present on all of their tours. Yet, despite having been in the band for a long time (a lot longer than his predecessor in fact), he is not an official member of the band, and as such is not listed in the infobox. He was never granted membership to the band that he's been with for the best part of 20 years. On the other hand, Paul Mario Day, the original Iron Maiden vocalist, was in his band for a very short period of time, recorded nothing with the band, fronted the group for very few shows, and yet was an official member of that band.
The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter whether a musician has only toured with OR recorded with a band (or neither) does not determine that they are NOT an actual band member, and a musician recording with AND touring with a band does not determine that they ARE an actual band member. It's all a question of officiality. If Prairie Prince was a founding member of the band then he must have been officially part of the group, and should be listed in the infobox and moved from "touring musicians" to "former members". If Randy Jackson was a hired hand for an album and tour then he is not an official member, and so needs to be moved also.
I openly confess to having less knowledge about the history of Journey than other Wikipedians on these pages possess, so I'm not stating that the status quo is wrong. For all I know it's not. I also appreciate the issues left by ambiguity over who officially joined the band and who didn't, and obviously that may prevent us from knowing enough to make corrections (if any should be needed). However, I feel this issue needs to be pointed out, so that it is at least observed, even if it can't be addressed.
On an additional and completely separate note: Why is it that we are including a list for "session musicians" when there have been plenty of session musicians on the band's recordings and only three are included? Is that list necessary?
Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- This raises an excellent point, but I don't know how we can resolve it outside of the status quo. Sometimes bands issue press releases listing their members, and designating which members are "official" and which aren't; sometimes they don't. When Herbie Herbert hired Steve Perry to be the band's new lead singer in 1977, I don't remember if the word "official" was ever used. And even press releases have issues as historical sources. Their purpose is not "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;" their purpose is promotion, plain and simple. In 2007, Jeff Scott Soto was named the "official" lead singer at journeymusic.com, because the band wanted to promote themselves as being complete and being past the Augeri lip-syncing thing. And if Perry was never "named" the official lead singer in a press release, does that mean that Steve Perry was never in the band, while JSS was?
- Another problem I have with "official" is that, in addition to the word's use for promotion, it is also used in an attempt to change history by people with an agenda in the present. Neal Schon apparently would like to pretend that Steve Augeri was never the band's official lead singer. And yet all the promotional materials from the Augeri period seem designed to get the fans to accept that he was, whether or not the word "official" was ever used.
- Response to particular question: The three "session musicians" listed were the only three musicians who recorded with Journey but never performed with Journey.
- Request: Until we've found a better standard for determining band membership, the touring and session musician lists should be restored to the template. I won't do it myself because I don't want an edit war. Burbridge, you should do it with the understanding that it is based on current consensus--and that the consensus can be changed as a result of this conversation.
- One more point: I continue to hope that more of us can discuss these issues here, and am glad Burbridge joined the discussion.
- I'm not saying it's perfect and I'm perfectly aware that, especially in cases like this, there's always going to be a level of subjectivity. I understand and appreciate that. The main reason for this me posting this discussion is purely so that a) I have clarified areas I feel I wasn't clear enough on in the previous discussion about this topic, and b) if anyone else notices these issues then they have this piece ready to glance through so that they could understand why there are issues with regards to this subject in this particular case. Your comments put the issues into focus clear enough. It would be nice if we had more clarity from official channels but there you go. The one thing that I'm tempted to add is that maybe in some areas of the actual article there is more emphasis on what is considered to be the facts based on the "members" sections (e.g. in the first paragraph where it mentions Prairie Prince "served" as drummer, some readers may misinterpret what "served" actually means in this case), but on the whole I'd say that's the issue done and dusted. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Discography
I've previously noticed a couple of issues with the discography included on the main Journey page. These issues may have been discussed and decided upon before (in which case I've failed to recognise their mention in the archives) and if this is the case please ignore this discussion as there is nothing to be gained from discussing the issues any further. If I bring up something that hasn't been discussed, these points are more of a "food for thought" thing than an actual challenge on the status quo.
1. Not all of the albums listed are studio albums.
Generally speaking in these discographies only studio albums tend to be included, with all other albums left to their own discographies on the separate page, wouldn't it be best if the same logic was used here, considering the fact that there is another page for full discography?
Furthermore, why is it that only specific non-studio albums are included and not others from the same category (e.g. why one live album and not another?)?
2. The albums that aren't standard studio releases are not labled as such.
There is nothing to differentiate in the list between what is a studio release and what's not, meaning someone has to click on the album to find out exactly what it is. Therefore, wouldn't it be better if the live/soundtrack/compilation albums were labled as such, maybe in the same brackets as the year of release after a semi-colon?
To reiterate, please only take heed and respond to either of the issues in this discussion if they are unresolved, and I apologize if this post is unnecessary. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, Burbridge. Lately I've been buying a lot of MP3s at Amazon to recreate some old mixtapes from the 80s and 90s as playlists on my phone, and often I have to consult the Wikipedia pages of various bands to figure out which album I should be looking for if I want the original studio version. Most are helpfully using the logic you outline here.
- I don't remember any discussion of this but I do remember that your logic used to be followed, and when it was edited to the current way I must have decided to ignore it for one or more of any number of reasons, including temporary exhaustion. I have no idea why everyone else seems to have ignored it, but their excuses must be at least as good as mine.