Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B-bot (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 2 August 2016 (Notification that File:WATSOSCover.jpg is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nick Drake

Hi - could I please ask where you are getting your release dates from? The dates that were there before are those given in all of Drake's biographies – Humphries' biography actually states that the dates were given to him by Drake's record label, Island. There are reviews of Bryter Layter in existence from 1970 so it could not possibly have been released in March 1971. What are your sources to support your changes? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Apologies, just seen your explanations on the articles in question, thanks for that. There is a problem, however, in that those dates are in dispute. Humphries does indeed mention the July 1969 adverts for Five Leaves Left but says that this appears to be a planned release date that was postponed at the last moment after the ads had gone out. The catalogue number for Bryter Layter is sandwiched between those of The Road to Ruin by John and Beverley Martyn, and Tea for the Tillerman by Cat Stevens, both of which came out in November 1970. This definitely requires further investigation. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason the catalogue number is in between The Road To Ruin and Tea For The Tillerman is because Bryter Layter was scheduled to be issued that time, but was delayed due to an artwork overhaul (which apparently left Drake depressed). Once the catalogue number was assigned, it remained as is, but the LP itself was held over. Where are the reviews in 1970 for Bryter Layter? The reviews in the major UK music magazines at the time only appeared in March 1971. As for Five Leaves Left, there is a quote as cited by Humphries of a review by Melody Maker of the album in July 1969 (in the main article on Nick Drake). Odd to be reviewing an album if it wasn't released yet. If you've looked at the new book on Nick,Remembered For A While, published last December, the narrative, which is well-researched and has Nick's sister's approval, clearly states these release dates for his first two LPs. BGC (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Gabrielle Drake's book, it's a beautiful and detailed work – I'd skimmed through it in a bookshop, looking at the photos and newspaper cuttings, but I'd never noticed that the release dates in the text were different from those always quoted... not just in all the previous biographies, but in numerous magazine articles about Drake. Even Island Records' website still states that Bryter Layter was released in 1970. I have no reason to doubt you or Gabrielle, however: in fact I've just found a photo online from an ad for Bryter Layter in Melody Maker dated March 6, 1971, stating the record is "out now", which gives more weight to the fact it was released in March 1971 and not November 1970. The dates are odd, though: 3 July 1969 was a Thursday and 6 March 1971 a Saturday, not standard days to be releasing records. Plus that issue of Melody Maker would have been on sale on Tuesday 2 March... why run an advert for a record "out now" if it isn't available yet? I'm going to do some more digging and see if somebody from Island Records at the time can confirm them. Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the dates are odd. The March 6, 1971 one is my error. I miscalculated it; the 5th indeed was the Friday. And yes, Fridays were usually the release day in those days (until about Spring 1982, I believe, when it changed to Mondays). There had been a few albums released during that period on alternate weekdays (Sgt. Pepper went out on a Thursday, and I believe the first Floyd LP was out on a Saturday, as examples). I'll amend March 6th to the 5th, since that's the more likely of the two release dates. I think Island are likely repeating what was assumed be correct re: the 1970 release date. And sometimes mistruths become the gospel. I think that could possibly be the case here. BGC (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Doh, I've just noticed you added the Melody Maker ad, how unobservant of me. I suspect this and the interview will get put up for deletion from the article as they are probably under copyright, but we'll see what happens. Yes, Fridays was the most common release date in the UK (actually, going through old copies of the music press in the British Library, I have found that up until 1985 many records were still released on Fridays rather than Mondays), but I have found cases of singles and albums being released on Monday – usually where the company was putting out a record that they felt had little or no chance of charting, and therefore the day of release was irrelevant. This could obviously be the case with Drake's albums – as I said, although the publication date of the music papers was a Saturday, they were normally in the shops from the Tuesday beforehand, so "a week ago" from Sounds dated 13 March could be Monday 1 or Tuesday 2 March 1971 as a release date as well.

Sincere apologies if I offended you with my reverts: it's just that without a source in the edit summary and the overwhelming "evidence" for the other release dates, it was the obvious thing to do at the time. I totally agree with you about mistruths – especially in the case of someone like Nick Drake, where the only sources of material during his lifetime consist of a single (extremely brief) interview and fewer than twenty album reviews, it's inevitable that most of the sources used to create biographies, Misplaced Pages articles, etc. are legacy works. Which means that in the intervening 40+ years there has been plenty of scope to convert half-truths and myths into "fact", as evidenced on these release dates, and the story that Drake delivered the master tapes of Pink Moon unannounced and unrecognised to the record company (also untrue). I have been meaning to work on the articles for Drake's albums for a while, but it will have to wait until I get back to the UK and have more access to books and music papers: I was helping out a couple of ladies on Pink Moon a few years back but they both suddenly disappeared off Misplaced Pages... at least that article is in a fair state, but Five Leaves Left and Bryter Layter need a lot more work. Richard3120 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that the first two albums need work. BGC (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Coney Island Baby

Hi! "Old stuff", but I just noticed you changed the date of Coney Island Baby to a specific January date. May I ask where did you get that exact date? I'm asking because I was doing some researches using Billobard and this indeed isn't mentioned at all in December '75; it appears as a new LP in mid Jan, and gets a review on the Jan 24, 1976 issue, so Jan '76 is definitely right. But the 19th?? Thanks in advance.KenjiMizoguchi (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Melody Maker ad 6 March 1971.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Melody Maker ad 6 March 1971.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WATSOSCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:WATSOSCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)