Talk:The Mamas & the Papas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not Enough on Band's Success

It seems to me that the majority of this article is about the personal lives of the members of the band, rather than its actual music. Wouldn't it be better if there was a bit more on things such as the success of albums and singles, and the musical styles of the band? - Tangerine 03 10:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Not Neutral

This article is not neutral, I mean who told you that Superman slept with wonder woman? Even though, we should be very careful and we shouldn't accuse super heroes of such stuff. Same goes for the Mama's and papa's. The editor of this article is subtley suggesting that there was some kind of orgy going on in the group. I strongly disagree. In addition, Michelle Philips is portrayed as an indecent woman, while she's in fact a very fine lady who wore a chastity belt until she married her husband. Peace.

• True. Bill Clinton, Madonna and Teddy Kennedy are stil virgins. And OJ simpson and Adolf Hitler are innocent (until proven Guilty).

Ah, yeah, Nikki Sixx and Blackie Lawless also wear chastity belts. In fact their Mamas still hold the keys. www.jpfo.org

Hey buddy, Chill, Frank miller told us that Superman slept with wonder woman in the Dark Knight Strikes Again, they had a daughter....

I'm removing the neutrality tag because I really can't see why it's there. This article is as neutral as It could be written in my opinion. There's no need for over reaction.

☭ Zippanova 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Phillips was a good singer

Michelle Phillips was named by Time magazine as "the purest soprano in popdom". Even if this is exaggerated, she was a respected vocalist and this article's comment about her inability to sing seems rather gratuitous. She sang lead on the hit 'Dedicated to the One I Love' so the public probably thought she sang well enough.

I just took the information from my sources. If you think it is POV or inaccurate, change it (with the info you mention above). Also, next time, please sign your post (even if you aren't signed in). You can do this with three or four tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). Most people prefer four as it also puts in a timestamp. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:12, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

& or and?

An anon user just changed The Mamas & the Papas to The Mamas and the Papas. I've seen the former used much more often than the latter. And, IMHO, it looks better. Anyone have a preference? Should we change it back? I want to... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Frecklefoot

Dear Mr. Frecklefoot, the spelling of The Mamas and the Papas, as such, is the correct way and it looks just fine to me. Of course that is the way it was most used back in the 1960s when I was a young college student. It has been writen other ways as well. I am 63 years of age today and was once myself into the Mamas & Papas. Infact, I was a "Mama" wannabe in my youth.---Karen Lachey

Dear Ms. Lachey,

You needn't start a new section to respond to my original post. Indenting your response just below mine—like I am here—is fine. You also needn't address me by name. Just dash out your response. Thank you for signing your post, but the wiki way of doing it is by typing 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The software takes care of inserting your username (or IP address, in your case) for you. The latter form is preferred since it also adds a timestamp. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Camelot

The paragraph that states something like "their relationship was just like camelot", what???????!!!! I think that section probably needs a good cleanup (I would do it, but don't know enough about the subject matter).

I thought I was being eloquent. :-) It just occured to me while I was writing it. And I totally think the analogy is sound. But, hey, feel free to clean it up as you see fit. I can't help it if our readers aren't familiar with classic musicals. (BTW, it's just "Frecklefoot," not "Mr. Frecklefoot"). — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing?

What's confusing about the article? Please list your gripes here. I thought it was coherent when I initially wrote it, but thinks may have gotten bonked around since then. If you don't specify what's wrong, we can't fix it. Thanks. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that Michelle Phillips rolled 18 straight 7s in a craps game: the mathematical probability of this happening is (1/6)^18 -- i.e., one-sixth to the eighteenth power -- or less than 1 in 100 trillion. If true, this would have to be the wildest stroke of luck in the history of the human race, so color me skeptical. Is this something Michelle claimed, and is there some other reason to think it actually happened?

--12.73.172.19 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, statistically it seems very unlikely, but the claim is referenced, and you can watch it here on Youtube. Yorkshiresky (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In Reference To Monterey Pop Festival Performance

The article states the the Mamas & Papas performed dismally at the Monterey Pop Festival. The main reason behind this was not in their vocals- though they did hit a few klinkers here and there, it was tuning problems with John Phillips' capoed 12 string electric and the other player. The singers did a very good job keeping the melody rolling with these two guys who could not solve the tuning issues. I have both the CD box set and the DVD of the festival and it does not take much to notice that this was the problem. I had added this info to the article but it appears to have been taken out. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretschcc (talk • contribs)

If you cited the information, it would've been fine. Since it wasn't cited, it looked like POV observation. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Giving your impression by emperical observation is original research. Quoting a noted industry insider or columnist isn't. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. However, take a meander at the CD or DVD and that will back my statement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretschcc (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to buy the CD or DVD to check your statements. CDs and DVDs are appropriate material to cite. You can add the information back in yourself, adding the DVD as the source of the information. However, the information that they performed poorly comes from Denny Doherty himself (from his website). — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the real problem with the performance was two-fold. It is true that the band had not sung together for awhile and Denny literally showed up for the performance shortly before they were due on stage. They hadn't any time to warm up and they were a little rusty. Secondly, The Who and The Jimi Hendrix Experience had performed right before the group was to perform and they tore up the stage. Guitars were smashed and aflame, drum kits were totalled and mics and monitors went flying. I belive that when all was put back together, Michelle's mic was not on or turned down to the point that she couldn't be heard. None of the vocals were balanced at all. It just wasn't a good night for them. Interestingly, some years later, a nine CD radio special was produced and the group's performance was remixed and cleaned up a bit. This is probably the best version of the group's performance that I have yet to hear. Dunhill1966 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

They were great at Monterey. So far as we must, inevitably, pick and choose what documented information to include (we can't include it all). Get rid of this reference to them performing poorly at Monterey. They were great. Monday Monday was a stunning visual document of what makes their harmony arrangements unique and wondrous to the ear. We don't need documentation saying they were great. We have every right to omit any given reference, and this one should be deleted. It's ridiculous. Cbben (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not enough of band's significance

This article gives a pretty thorough account of the lives of the band members, but there doesn't seem to be much mention of their place within music history: the sort of music they played, any innovations, their influences in both directions, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.229.230 (talk • contribs)

Well, if you have that sort of information, go ahead and add it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Phillips

I'm glad M.Phillips was listed as the last surviving member of the 'original' group (Mamas and Papas). If it hadn't said 'original' Jill Gibson would have to be listed as a surviving member as well (see Michelle Phillips). GoodDay 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

List of bands not strictly relevant

Removing this list as not strictly relevant to the article: "They were one of the North American groups to achieve and maintain widespread success before and during the British Invasion (others being The Byrds, The Beach Boys, The Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Buffalo Springfield, Simon & Garfunkel and The Lovin' Spoonful)." -- 201.19.93.178 13:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What's a band?

I'd consider them a group or a pop/folk act. I'm not sure a couple of guitars make them a band. Anyway, I did some editing but more is needed. The article skips around and gets a tad wordy. --NameThatWorks (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The page sounds like an episode of True Hollywood Story and doesn't hardly chronicle their musical success.LoveLaced (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What's their origin?

The top insert states that the group's origin is Maritime Canada, yet there is little or no information about that. The article seems to imply that the band was formed in the Virgin Islands or in New York and none of the members are from Canada. Can this be explained better? LogicalOctopus (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I echo LogicalOctopus' comment. Doherty was from Nova Scotia, but the other Papa and the two (or three) Mamas weren't. - 198.96.180.245 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cass and John were both from Alexandria, VA. Michelle was from Los Angeles, CA and Denny was from Halifax, Nova Scotia as was previously stated. They all got to know each other on the folk music circuit that was based on the east coast in the early sixties. The group really did hone their sound while in the Virgin Islands and when they left, Cass had gone ahead to California. She told the group that Los Angeles was where things were happening and the rest of the group followed. Dunhill1966 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Enough Peaking!

The word "peak" in various forms is used twenty-six (26) times in this article. The article needs to be re-written with a few synonyms, like "topped out", or "reached", etc. jaknouse (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wolfking of LA

John Phillips had a moderate solo hit in 1970 with the country-flavoured album "The Wolf King of LA"

Is this right? My recollection is that it sank like a stone, possibly because of distribution problems. BTLizard (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this link at Rhino, the album "tanked". Hondo77 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought so. I'll alter the text. BTLizard (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The album did tank, but the single Mississippi b/w April Anne was a modest hit charting at #32 on Billboard, I believe. John admitted many times that he did not like his singing on the record and he and the record label did almost nothing to promote it. Little did they know what a clssic it would turn out to be! Dunhill1966 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Discography

Is anybody watching this page? Just come on here to see that this group have had multiple No.1 singles and albums in the UK - they haven't had any! From the history I see that User:Whipper84 decided to change it all (on Christmas Day of all days!) There have been so many edits done since, that I can't undo this, but it quickly needs to be blanked until someone can put it right. I'd do it, but I'll leave it to one of the more regular editors.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, just done it via copy and paste. Don't know if there have been any edits lost, but that's vandals for you.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Get facts str8 on Jill Gibson...she was not on 10 of the 12 songs on second album.

Gibson claims to have sung ten songs on the M&P album...maybe she did in the studio or in concert...but saying she is on ten of the songs on the record is not true. According to rock historian Greg Russo, studio records show Michelle had already recorded at least six of the songs on the album in April 1966, including the two singles, "I Saw Her Again" and "Words of Love." Some of these were re-recorded with Jill in July, but Producer Lou Adler indicates Michelle's versions were on the record. Russo also says studio logs indicate when Michelle returned to the group in August, she added vocals to at least three of the songs Gibson recorded in July.

Quotes from the book “Go Where you Wanna Go”

Lou Adler: “We recorded Jill on six songs, which we later replaced.”

The group did not work well with Jill. Denny and Cass did not want her in the group.

Denny Doherty (Go Where You Wanna Go): “She (Jill) was completely out of her element.”

“As soon as we tried it without her (Michelle) we all said ‘Nah…it’s not going to work without her…’”

John Phillips (from book "Papa John"): "I saw that though Jill was a perfectly adequate singer, we needed Michelle's stage charisma and grittier edge."

Bones Howe (Go Where You Wanna Go) : "When Jill Gibson came in, it didn't sound the same."

And the fans missed Michelle in the lineup. Read this account from a fan at a concert in Dallas Texas, 1966 (from "Go Where You Wanna Go")

Sandy Grainger: "First John, then Denny, then Michelle – we thought – and finally Cass. From the stage Jill could not look more like Michelle if they were twins. John got busy with the introductions. He introduced Denny to wild applause…then he introduced their new member 'Mama Jill.' There was an audible gasp from the crowd and a few shouts of 'Where’s Michelle?' It was obvious she was missed. We felt cheated.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richierich53 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just now I´ve read "Go Where You Wanna Go". The quotations above are correct but there´s others that say the opposite (in that same book!), e. g. this one by Michelle: "There´s no way to know who sang on what..." (etc. etc., see article for more details). Of course they did have "a lot to choose from" and of course in the final mix they used whatever seemed to fit in and sound right. That´s how records were made (and probably still are, only more digitally). On some other page Michelle says Jill was a good singer. Best, SpVggLieth (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

John Phillips

Changed the assertion of rape from the wedding night to the eve of her wedding, as MacKenzie said that it happened the night before her wedding. Mukanil (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Members box

In the 'Members' box under the title it lists the members of the band beside which there is a date, or two dates. I now know that these dates are the years they were born and died. However I was confused at first because on other band articles the dates are usually the years that the artist was active within the band. I think the dates should be; replaced with the years active, totally removed, or indicated in the box title as to what they mean, i.e. member's lifespan.

I think seeing as the page is meant to educate me about the band it is important that there are no confusing sections. Also the dates the memebrs were alive, whilst interesting, is not immediately relevant to the Mamas and Papas article. Forfica (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

California Dreamin' re-release

Does anyone know why California Dreamin' was re-released?--85.210.23.161 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

80's and 90's Years

Just out of curiousity... why not list Spanky McFarland, MacKenzie Phillips, Scott McKenzie as members and add the appropriate reunion years in the "Years Active" area. It mentions the 80's and 90's reunions and while not very significant overall, I would like to know more about that time period, who was involved and the years active. 66.76.35.254 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Josh

I think that all of the appearances with the above mentioned members were mostly one-offs, which would not warrant their being listed. Also consider that there was absolutely no recorded product with any of these members.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

the/The

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

2013 Rewrite

More to follow, including a rationalisation of the references. The article follows British editorial conventions. This won't be to everyone's taste, but at least it is internally consistent. Please do not randomly Americanise spellings and dates. Stananson (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an American group, and as such, we use American spelling, dates and syntax. See WP:TIES. That is common practice across the encyclopedia. I have done extensive work on articles about English bands, and I would not have gone in and changed them to American style, even though I am American - it is just not done that way. On what basis are you choosing to do this? The article was internally consistent to American style before you made almost 400 edits to it without discussion - and I object to this change. This is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and while I am sure you have good intentions - and I don't doubt that it needed rewriting - hijacking an article this way, especially after you've been asked to discuss your changes,here and here is just not the way we normally work here. I have not yet read your latest changes, and I expect to find many if not most of them to be improvements - but not the change from American style and syntax. I think you should bring this back into line with encyclopedia guidelines - and meanwhile, perhaps other editors would like to discuss this here. Tvoz/talk 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your feedback. The article was a dog's breakfast, with no uniform style. For better or for worse, I have standardised on British usage. If you want to go through it line by line, footnote by footnote, and Americanise everything, consistently and correctly, bravo! No one has ever done that before. If not, let it be. Random changes that are at odds with the rest of the page are unhelpful and expressly discouraged by the Wikipedia style manual. The page has not been hijacked. Every substantive point in the article as I found it and added since has been scrupulously preserved, even though few were adequately sourced, many mixed fact with fiction, and all had to be researched, documented, and written afresh. You acknowledge that the page was substandard. Was it the collaborative consensus that it should be that way? How do you imagine pages like this will improve unless an editor is willing to take responsibility for a systematic rewrite? Stan Anson 09:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, you've gone back and once again changed the correct "were" to the incorrect, jarring, and unacceptable "was", even though this had been changed back previously. The name of this band is a plural noun, like The Beach Boys, Eagles, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and many, many, many others across the encyclopedia - some using British English, some using American English - but ALL using the plural verb. British groups like Radiohead use "are" because the piece is properly written in British English; if it were written in American English, which it should not be, it would say "Radiohead is an English band." American groups with a singular noun name like, say, Heart, use "is" because Heart is an American group and that's how we say it. But even Americans would never, ever, say "The Beatles was a great band." Never. It is wrong, and "The Mamas and the Papas was a vocal group" is equally bizarre and wrong. So please stop making this incorrect change - there is no justification whether we were writing it in British English, like The Beatles, which we should not (see above), or in American English, like The Doors. Only a singular name in American English, like Toto, would use the singular verb, Tvoz/talk 20:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the edit history, I am happy to treat the Mamas and the Papas as a plural, but "band" and "group" are singluar. Stan Anson 09:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge New Mamas and the Papas article with the Mamas & the Papas

There is a separate article for a group called the New Mamas and the Papas but, in fact, no such group ever existed. In 1981, John Phillips recruited Denny Doherty to reform the Mamas and the Papas with two new Mamas (Mackenzie Phillips and Spanky McFarlane). And the group only ever performed, was advertised and publicised under the name "Mamas and the Papas".

Later on, after MacKenzie Phillips left the group John still called the band the Mamas and the Papas and later they were dubbed "The New Mamas and The Papas".... however they always introduced themselves as The Mamas and the Papas. Combining this article with the original article seems like the right move.Bebfire (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are two articles from 1982, the year John Phillips reformed the group: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19820403&id=AhMhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QXUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5499,460879&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19821210&id=dcIxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f-MFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2803,8666312&hl=en

And an LA Times article from 1990: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-10/entertainment/ca-81_1_papa-mamas-fun

And from 1991: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19910808&id=eqJJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ww0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=5437,2130536&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algork (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

John Phillips also wrote, recorded and produced two albums of new material with the reformed Mamas & the Papas in 1982 and 1985, neither of which were released at the time. They were eventually collected on the 2009 Varese Sarabande release "Many Mamas, Many Papas".

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Mamas & the Papas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

It seems to me that the musical genius of John Phillips is not sufficiently shown in this article. He really is the worst drug casualty of all time. Consider, this is a man who arranged, wrote, and produced hits, great songs that were hits, not only for himself but for others. The 4th and 5th Mamas and Papas albums were far better than the reviewers gave them credit for, especially the fifth. The melody writing alone is absolutely top notch. While it is true that his first solo album Wolfking of LA was originally badly received this is hardly the audiences fault, they never heard it, and the reviewers at the time had better things to do, doubtless, than appreciate great songwriting when they heard it, assuming they bothered to listen, which seems doubtful. I got a copy when it came out and thought it was a great collection of songs (even the one about 'those junkie bums' stealing his drumkit), I agree with the band, as a Mamas and Papas album it could have been a major hit. Personally I am constantly amazed by his genius in all departments mentioned above, and that's before we come to the vocal arranger, the arranger that made a band that hated the song do 'Monday Monday' over and over until he was satisfied, and then proved to be right in Spades when it became their biggest hit. Before underselling such genius, one should pause and ask who there is to compare with him in all those departments, and the answer is, very very few musicians indeed are in this ballpark with a comparable array of songs and talents. That such a talent should then choose to put it all up his arm is a story I still find virtually beyond belief. This is not some quirky little Syd Barrett frying his tiny mind, this is a major talent throwing it all away bigtime. Also, the bleakness of his writing output doesn't just surface on the 4th album as the writings suggest, it surfaces straight away, for example most people mis-hear California dreamin', it says "I stepped into a church, and I pretend to pray." This is pop song writing with no prisoners taken, writing for mature adults. It is, I feel, fair to say that the extremes he then went to with his life have overshadowed the sheer size of the talent he was throwing away when he did so. Well, that's my halfpennyworth, best wishes, Olly 218.101.92.52 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)