Talk:Clouds (1960s rock band)

message: I basically deleted EVERYTHING off here except the references because what was there was all copyrighted material so don't bring it back. There are laws against copying things from websites you know... I have now added the band's discography and started half of the Biography which needs to be done, so if anyone can be bothered to research and finish the bands bio it would be much appreciated but remember DON'T copy stuff off other websites. Debaser23 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to do on this page

message: I renamed the article and deleted the redirect. I fixed the double redirects from articles first. If you guys don't like the name, feel free to move it again. ---J.S  (T/C) 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: As well as you finding You Can All Join In I also found Bumpers. Clouds are the last band on the list so I linked them to here. Debaser23 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compilation albums

message: ----
To 156
I disagree that this was vandalism - didn't you see the mess that was left after the citations were (quite rightly) added by SmackedBot? Something had to be done to clean it up. It seems mean of you to just set it all back to square one when a lot of people have worked to get it where it is. It seems just spite, after our brief conversation on the Emerson discussion page. I think I responded fairly, I could have said an awful lot more, but in your words, I was trying to avoid being 'personal'. I'd rather you leave this site to SmackedBot and others who genuinely care about the outcome, not pursuing some personal vendetta.Matthew.hartington 07:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation requsts are valid and inline citations for all the requested content is req'd. The 2 main {templates} at the top of the page are also req'd to stay until the article is improved. Removing the templates or the tags wiothout addressing the reason for them being there is vandalism. 156.34.215.47 08:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A review of the article history shows that a few weeks ago this article was very poorly written and violated several key Wikipedia policies including WP:ATT, WP:AWW and WP:NPOV. Someone took the time to clean out all of the horribly written text(with tht comment that more removal was needed) They also tagged all the obvious text requiring inline/verifiable citations from reliable sources. And they placed the proper templates for an article that was on the verge of being nominated for deletion. From what I can see, your edits were to basically put all the poorly written, unencyclopedic content back in. Wiki is an encyclopedia. No opinions should be expressed here. No poetic POV prose. Just point-to-point, dry boring facts. Despite its cleanup this article is still basically about a non-notable subject. The only way this article has any hope of staying on Wikipedia is to keep the text short and direct about the subject. Inline citations are needed... 1 for every line would be ideal. And no superfluity. The article barely survived its first AfD nomination. It won't survive a second nom if it returns to the state it was in before. It's a non-notable subject. 2-3 short referenced paragraphs are all that is needed here. If proper refs can be found I can format them correctly in the standard {cite web} and {cite book} reference style. But the sources need to be verifiable and reliable otherwise they can't be added. The article can be chopped down another 15-20% of its current size. Too much fluff = article prod. For its size right now at 15-20 inline refs from at least 6 different professional publications or books. The more the better. And I will format them once they are added in. You can list them here as well as long as you indicate which specific text from the article the ref supports. 156.34.215.47 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE ALLEGED 'VANDALISM' 

message: Interested in the Ritchie comments. I’m a muso too, played keyboards at good level, met Emerson, didn’t meet Wakeman, but saw him. Lot of top guys then, but Emerson and Ritchie stand out from rest coz they carried the whole fxxxxxg thing on their own without support other than bass and drums. And Ritchie was first to do it, no question. 
Clouds records not best, unfair on the guys. Watercolour days organ might not be that hard to play, but shows distinct and individual voice, and some very sublime piano phrases. Lighthouse (corny song), piano and organ very cleverly make sound paintings, not techno, but not always about difficult, bout taste and sense too. Tons of that here, saves the song.
I know better than you, nother naff song, but easy to play? Don’t think so - those phrases aren’t just a few notes, they’re chords, and the thing about Billy , he had hands like two right hands, all his solos were either octaves or harmonies, that’s why the organ sounded so strong live. I remember Tony Kaye puzzling bout that - they played the same Hammond, but he couldn’t get the strong sound, even stood the two keyboards together at the Marquee to study the drawbars and work out why. The answer wasn’t the keyboard, it was Billy. On I know better than you, those eight-finger chords work out at 12 a bar. 
Listen to Imagine me - no-one else at that time could have played that two-handed ending, those ascending diminished chords played at incredible speed and power. Sing Sing Sing, the same. On stage, even more so. And did a lot of those classical snatches that gave Keith the idea he later became famous for. Fugue in Cminor in the middle of Bowie’s song for instance. And did Nut Rocker, that ELP did later as an encore. Plus America, that Yes filched.
Cold Sweat, predictable notes, but part of ambience, not meant as solo. Listen instead to the powerful syncopations of the organ - no overdubs, just two quick hands.
Agree about Carpenter (trying to build a solo that just didn’t build) and Get off my farm (worst song of the lot)- solo disappears up its own axxhxxe. Ritchie was never a great soloist, but then, neither was Keith. Billy was a great band player, and Keith was a great set-piece player. They were very different in style. Keith was generally from that McGriff/Smith Hammond school, Billy played the organ with more of an orchestral approach, he tended to try and play everybody’s part, just as well he was in a three-piece. Same was true of Harry, the drummer. They wouldn’t have suited a full band, too busy, could say Billy was power mad. But for my money, the best live organist at that time by a mile. Biggest organ sound ever. DaveEx 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Ritchie 

message: I note your changes, but don't follow your reasoning. You've taken out pieces that already have citations, and put in old pieces that need citations yet don't need to be included in the article. The article as it stood before the changes was not perfect by any means, but it was at least as good if not better than many of the rock music pieces allowed to exist as they are. If you were to follow your own logic, you'd be very busy re-writing every article you see! I can't allow this to stand as it is and will either re-write it or revert completely to previous editMatthew.hartington 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations need to be inline and use the {citeweb} or {citebook} notation. NPOV crufting and original research issues still need to be addressed along with weasel wording. 156.34.210.28 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I acknowledged in my message to you that work needed done on the citations, but the citations did exist, and you simply went back to a very old edit that removed those citations. I was hoping you'd help with improving the piece, not just replace it with a very poor and threadbare edit that doesn't stand up. As for the weasel words, I'd accept that if your standards were applied across the board - take a look at the other articles nearby, those standards are clearly not being applied there, so why apply them here? I'd much rather we reach a compromise somewhere in between your version and mine - can't you take my version and start again, rather than just impose that old edit? Surely the citations don't need such radical removal? They exist, after all. I'm putting my version back online, but if you come up with a compromise edit - and better still, use your skills and knowledge to improve the piece, I'll gladly go along with that. Matthew.hartington 12:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: PS - When I have a bit more time, I'll also try and re-write the piece to attempt to marry both versions, taking on board your comments, as well as leaving the citations as they are intact till they can be polished. Matthew.hartington 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TO USER 156