Jump to content

Talk:Birth of the Cool

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recording Order

[edit]

The recording order seems to differ under the headings Recording and Recording Dates. 2001:18E8:2:11B7:25BE:8286:7814:C59A (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boplicity composer

[edit]

I'm pretty sure "Boplicity" is by Gil Evans and Miles Davis --68.5.86.167 13:06, 2005 July 8 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but I could be wrong. I'm an idiot for not owning this CD, so when I pick it up I'll come back here and fix/add what I can. Uttaddmb 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It does say Cleo Henry on the back of my copy (2001 RVG reissue on CD). According to this, however, it was composed by Evans & Davis and merely credited to Henry. As it's officially credited to Henry, his name should stay, but we could add a note about its true origins (though some more support for this notion besides a single online article should be required first). ¦ Reisio 03:51, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
The Cleo Henry article says the name is Davis's grandmother's, and he and Evans did write the tune. --ajn (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...right. I don't really doubt that it's Davis and Evans, but let's not resort to basing all our information off quasi-stubs written by anonymous users. ¦ Reisio 15:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Carr's biography, p55. --ajn (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is accurate. I've added this and cited a respectable source (Sultanof's article on the subject). Ehburrus (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Birth of the Cool

[edit]

The "Complete Birth of the Cool" CD includes detailed notes by Pete Welding about the origins and history of the nonet, which I've taken most of tonight's additions from. It also includes a shorter piece by Gerry Mulligan from 1971 in which he says Miles was the bandleader, one by Mike Zwerin (who played in the Royal Roost band but not on the studio recordings), and one by Phil Schaap about the radio broadcasts. It seems anal to me to insist that BOTC means the eleven tracks on the original 12" LP, the CD insert says that "Darn That Dream" has been included on the album for more than thirty years. (On getting out the RVG reissue, the Welding and Mulligan pieces are used as notes for that too, but not the Zwerin or Schaap). --ajn (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category error?

[edit]

Why under 1957 albums? Should be 1950, no?

It was released in 1957. The date is the release date. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Henry is a false name given due to contractual copyright problems; it is Davis and Evans. Charlie Parker used the false name of Charlie Chan because he was under contract from one recording company and then had recorded for another. This is not uncommon during that time of the 40s and 50s.

Jcooper1 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the first complete compilation was released in 1957, this merely is a matter of changing formats. I would think anyone going to Wikipedia to understand the history of jazz would find it more useful to see this page where the lion's share of the material was first performed, recorded and released: in 1949 and 1950. It strikes me as more confusing than helpful to locate this album in 1957, which is really a matter of converting it to the new 12" format. It was a commercial consideration, and most people old enough to have a vague grasp of the history of recording formats understand this.

For example: If a batch of material was released in a booklet with two 45 rpm singles in it in 1978, and finally came out as a CD in 1985 with a few bonus tracks from 1978, to my mind it would still make sense to place this in a Wikipedia timeline in 1978. And this is typically the way it is done. In short, I respectfully disagree with GoP here, and agree with the unsigned OP (from 21:03, 7 March 2009)‎ Sojambi Pinola (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Birth of the Cool/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.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Red XN A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.

Lacks technical personnel. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birth of the Cool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Birth of the Cool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birth of the Cool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wikipedians...

[edit]

Which of you musical geniuses can explain to us what the oxymoron "unison harmonies," as found at the end of the "Thornhill's influence" section, means?

2602:30A:C0A1:1530:D553:A951:D0A2:7C29 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Chronology for Birth of the Cool

[edit]

In the case of materials recorded AND RELEASED in the pre-LP era, it makes more sense to place them in a chronology reflecting their actual time of first release. In 1949 and 1950, one would have bought a series of 78's to hear this material, and they would have filed them on their shelves together. To put this "release" in "1957" is revisionist history. The material was recorded and released, for the most part, by 1950. That's when it had its historical impact, and that's where it belongs in Miles Davis' history. The 1957 re-release was merely an attempt to keep up with format changes, with a few "bonus tracks" added, as is done even today with re-releases. How can we move forward with this? My attempt at fixing this yesterday was reversed. Looking up this talk page, clearly I'm not the first who has felt this way about the page. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date. Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain." (Template:Infobox album#Chronology). Historical impact is a subjective notion that cannot be clearly discerned by the average reader (WP:NPOV, WP:AUDIENCE). An encyclopedia's role is not to clean up the flaws of the past, but to record and capture them as they are, which in the case you are describing, is a messy discography. So be it. As an online encyclopedia, we present content "accurately and in context rather than as 'the truth' or 'the best view'." (WP:PILLARS) And Wikipedia is not meant to list items excessively for specialists or to confuse the general reader (WP:NOTPLOT). Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple recording dates involved in this compilation, and in other compilations, otherwise it would not be a compilation. If you want readers to place or give a timeframe to a recording's historical impact, that information and chronological dating can be captured at the article for the individual recording from the compilation. (WP:CFORK). Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting too focused on pimping out the infobox for specialist readers (when the majority of readers don't need such a chronology) and trying to fix something that's not broken. Please keep in mind that infoboxes are not essential to articles for a reason: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) Dan56 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Written before your most recent comment: Dan56, How does this policy apply to music created in the pre-album era? (Which is what this is.) The physical release date of the majority of this material was 1949, and 1950, because in that era, the only medium on which jazz was consumed was 78 rpm singles. And that's when these recordings were actually released. Would you like me to create a page for each of the singles released on this album, in their proper place? Would that resolve it for you?
This page, by the way, does not refer to just one album, but to at least five compilations of "Birth of the Cool." First on the page, as it should be, is the release of the singles themselves, in 1949-50. By your own arguments, one could conclude that this is the least confusing place for the page to be placed. I'm still awaiting justification of your yanking this music way out of the context of when it was actually created. Historical impact, in the case of Miles Davis, CAN be assessed. I will resort to several hardcover books for citations of this, if I must. Which is what the "average reader" would have done, prior to Wikipedia. I find _your_ edit of this to be to be arbitary, and even POV. So we are at an impasse.
I sure would love it if others would weigh in on this.Sojambi Pinola (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how "pimping" has any connection to what I am doing, and that's not a terribly kind expression to use, Dan56. If I were trying to learn about the progression of Miles' Davis' music, which any number of people might want to do, I would not be able to use the infobox. You seem equally obsessed with keeping the infobox "unhelpful." Why? What does it mean so much to you to yank this album out of the chronology of when it was created? Who is that helping?Sojambi Pinola (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The album was not created or conceived in 1950 (or 1949). Davis did not record these songs with this album in mind. The recordings that appear here happened to have been recorded in 1949 and 1950, before an album was even a thought. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you why. You keep asking for reasons and explanations, yet not listening or accepting what I've said. Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the material was conceived as a whole in 1949, and performed as such at the time. I'm hearing you, and noticing the forced logic. Out of curiosity, have you ever held a 78 rpm record or 10" LP in your hand? I'm asking this for the sake of future discussion. You seem to find something really esoteric that i find commonplace, in all our debates. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the material was conceived as a whole in 1949, and performed as such at the time. I'm hearing you, and noticing the forced logic. Out of curiosity, have you ever held a 78 rpm record or 10" LP in your hand? I'm asking this for the sake of future discussion. You seem to find something really esoteric that i find commonplace, in all our debates. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8 of these recordings were released by 1950. Should I just make a separate sessions page for them, as i've done for other classic 78rpm-era sessions when encountering this curious lack of understanding of how 78s were consumed? so be it. I'll see you there, maybe. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no forced logic at work. The title of this page is "Birth of the Cool". It's not "recordings made by Miles Davis and arranged by Gil Evans in the late 40s". Hence, the subject of this page is the compilation album "Birth of the Cool". The release date shown reflects that fact. The history of the recordings which appear on the compilation are discussed in the body of the article. It's not rocket science. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 20:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release date edit war

[edit]

@Cambial Yellowing:, the proper thing to do now is continue this discussion here, as I cautioned you at your talk page and the recent edit summary. For record's sake, and any other interested parties, I will report my comments here:

When citing sources like these. They may just mean that those albums are commercially available at the time of the magazine issue's publication, and it does not negate the possibility they'd been released the month before. Especially if, as you cited, another magazine had confirmed just as much. Anyway, I've replaced it with a better source for February 1957.

WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Which of the sources you cited concludes it was released in "either February or March of 1957"?

You used two sources to cite one idea, which is what I quoted. You used "or" to combine those dates into that idea; a conjuction doesn't separate words or ideas but combines them. Your entry into the released field is a synthesis.

Making a footnote of a minority claim (and potential error) is fine, but some quick research into Google Books' catalogue of online-available publications seems to support February 1957 as the majority claim. And I cited one of those sources. I would not object to an adjascent footnote being made to encapsulate whatever few sources there might be that say March... Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some fellow contributors from the article's history: @Graham87:, @Dhoffryn:, @Philip Cross:, @Sojambi Pinola:. For the record, the content in dispute is this either/or release date(s) attributed to two contemporaneous trade magazine albums ads. Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of the Cool release date

[edit]

[Copied from User talk] : Cambial Yellowing Cambial — foliar❧ 23:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't know if you've been creating these speculative synthesized dates elsewhere, but be careful when citing sources like these. They may just mean that those albums are commercially available at the time of the magazine issue's publication, and it does not negate the possibility they'd been released the month before. Especially if, as you cited, another magazine had confirmed just as much. Anyway, I've replaced it with a better source for February 1957. Piotr Jr. (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Jr.:I appreciate your good faith desire to ensure reliable sources are cited. Your claim that it represents a synthesis is a misunderstanding of that policy: no synthesis has been produced. I maintain that "March album releases" means albums released in March, as that's the natural language meaning of that phrase; it's also the purpose of listings such as those in trade journals i.e. indicating to retailers newly available product. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Which of the sources you cited concludes it was released in "either February or March of 1957"? Piotr Jr. (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotr Jr.:The sources are not "combined", but rather each is cited for one of those dates. You may like to familiarise yourself with WP:V. For example, the fifth sentence at the top of that policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You used two sources to cite one idea, which is what I quoted. You used "or" to combine those dates into that idea; a conjuction doesn't separate words or ideas but combines them. Your entry into the released field is a synthesis. Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Making a footnote of a minority claim (and potential error) is fine, but some quick research into Google Books' catalogue of online-available publications seems to support February 1957 as the majority claim. And I cited one of those sources. I would not object to an adjascent footnote being made to encapsulate whatever few sources there might be that say March... Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing of the sort. Are you now arguing that February and March are the same idea? This is veering into the absurd. Following Wp:V, If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, which is what was done. Your attempt to paint this as a synthesis is not grounded in reality. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the album was released in one month or the other is one idea. Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Jr.: Refrain from canvassing your personal selection of editors. A simple notification here and or noticeboards if it's really that important to you will suffice. "Research" consisting of googling what you want to be the answer is not persuasive. There were three RS, one published by an academic press and two immediately contemporary to the event. They disagree on the precise month, so both were given and the sources cited. Deleting all three sources because... well you've made no attempt to justify it so I have no idea why – is not appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any month in Smith's book.

: I think I justified myself to warrant a discussion and undo your original edit. And I think I pinged editors without any bias, but maybe you can enlighten me about that too ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

You wanted to play this game. Now you have your poorly sourced claim tagged up, ugly and all... Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I offered a compromise for your (so far) apparently lone source for March. And you had the audacity to defend it with a status quo argument (which doesn't even appear at WP:BRD or WP:3RR) all to preserve your original edit, or maybe just your ego . . . Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of self-deceptive crap (about a good faith effort to reach you) that frightens people off of Wikipedia... Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Which release date should be kept?

[edit]

All right. Since I haven't gotten much response from the second party to this content dispute, particularly some key points, and instead gotten accusations of canvassing, I'm inviting others here in a completely unselective manner, although said party is still welcome to find further verification for his or hers (or their) position. Anyway! On with it. The second party's edit (which had remained, according to them for over a year here before I reverted it today) had made the release date in the infobox to claim "February or March 1957" and same in the lead, with multiple sources cited together, one claiming the March release and the other two or three claiming February. I reduced it to one source after seeing enough sources that made it in my mind a majority claim. After a bit back and forth, much off-topic, here we are. Piotr Jr. (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Conclusions

[edit]
  • February but I am willing to footnote the March claim with some wording that frames it as a minority claim against the many other sources listed below. Piotr Jr. (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • February–March, because none of the sources is explicit about the exact day of release, and we have multiple sources for each month. Advertisements in music magazines are weak sources because they may precede or follow the actual release date. Point of order: it is not a synthesis of sources to tell the reader that one group of sources says February while another group says March. Binksternet (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Sources that name February 1957 as the release date:

... Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing:, Please stop it with these stupid insinuations, and find some sources that back up giving March any weight here. As far as the content is concerned, the March claim is overwhelmingly outnumbered here. Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're rather excitedly jumping the gun. We'll leave aside for a moment your increasingly unhinged personal attacks, absurd references to irrelevant policies, and misuse and abuse of talk templates. Now that you have adduced a number of scholarly sources, rather than citing a google search after you edit warred to try to force through your edit, I largely agree with you. As a matter of weight, I see no value in including a footnote about the error in the usually reliable trade journal source. I suggest withdrawing the RFC, as no-one opposes the change now that you've cited scholarly sources giving weight to the earlier date. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:: Why would I withdraw the RfC if my point is to make this a battleground, as you say??? Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

You're clearly a know-it-all when it comes to my ulterior or unconscious motives. Why would I stop now? Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The crushing disappointment of the Pyrrhic victory. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the pathetic insinuations 🙄 ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Go project and blame deflect onto whoever's lodged a complaint against you at ANI. See how far your pretenses get you there. Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment (Summoned by bot) RfCs are meant to start with a brief, neutral, as far as possible, simple question. You can help us if you want by pointing us to prior discussion and pointing us in the direction of sources supporting each/various positions. Reading this is a waste of my time and that of others. I suggest you close it and if necessary open a new RfC properly framed. Pincrete (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, and apologizing for the stupid portions of my time here. Thank you. Piotr Jr. (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birth_of_the_Cool&oldid=1211156545"