Talk:Stan Kenton

message: Considering the huge legacy Stanley left behind in the world of jazz and music education and the wide variations in his bands over the years, his page is a bit short on content.  I'm tempted to put the stub sign back up, but I figure with a niche figure like Kenton, nobody'll see it anyway.
I don't really have the time to complete his page as much as I'd like at the moment, so if anyone else wants to have a go at it, feel free.  Just keep in mind that I'm a huge fan of Kenton, and I'll probably notice if something's a little awry.
The February birth date in 1912 for Stanley Kenton (my father)is wrong.  He was born the year before on December 15.  His mother Stella was pregnant before she was married so she and her husband Floyd Kenton married then left Colorado and went back to Kansas for the baby to be born.  Then they returned in 1912 with the child to Colorado.  It was only in 1948 when my mother, father and I needed passports and therefore had to get a copy of his birth certificate to apply for one that this error in birthdate came to light as his mother Stella Newcomb Kenton had hidden all of this from everyone.  It is an error that is still made on a lot of biographical materials on Stan Kenton.  [Leslie Kenton}
:Thanks for fixing that. Is the reference to Lance correct? -Willmcw 04:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the incident is also mentioned in Synanon. -Will Beback 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know it is, but its importance to Stanley's life and legacy is tangential at best and probably not worth the (relative) importance given to it here.  Also, I can find no information linking Stanley to the John Birch society except that the two shared December 15 as a birthday.  The two were mentioned together on a forum while discussing a record label that Ray Charles was involved with, but not as evidence that Stanley was a member.  Perhaps Leslie or a former bandmember can set the matter straight, but for now I'm removing that info. --Jemiller226 18:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm thinking this section would be not only more aesthetic but easier to reference if we grouped these band members by, say, instrument. Perhaps to save ourselves from small sections, saxes and rhythm would be one section? Any opinions or should I just go for it? MToolen 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Noted band personnel" section 

message: See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations & References

message: Based on information I had, having been raised by a Kenton follower, I made a first attempt to balance the section on the Feather controversy. Wikipedia member Kibiusa reversed my changes, citing "unsoruced [SIC] speculation" and adding a distortion of the edit (i.e., suggesting I specifically stated "some of his best friends were black") to the mix.
Unfortunately, there are two things to point out about Kibiusa's reversal of the edit. First, the original piece had no sources cited either, so by the same token the original should have been completely removed. Second, the original itself contained (and still does to an extent after my edits) notable POV violations, not the least of which is it gives only a portion of the incident, and every citing of the incident I have found gives much of the same refuting information I have now added. 
However, point taken on citing my own sources, and I have re-edited with said sources, including one discussing Feather actually reversing his original stance.
Based on Kibiusa's reversal comment, however, (I quote "revert unsoruced speculation and obvious POV. "Some of his best friends were black" means nothing. 90 musicians from Kenton's band are listed here -- how many are black?"), it appears there is some bias on the part of that member. Shows no attempt to investigate the subject other than reversing possible contradictory (i.e., supporting) statements. Further, member did not clean up original POV problems, despite implying a concern about the additions having one. 
Furthermore, when discussing alleged prejudice, documented and recorded friendly and personal association with someone of the race(s) in question is a legitimate point of contradiction, provided the evidence is documented and recorded. I  this case, there is abundant evidence on recording, on film, in correspondence, and the like. 
I have purposely left most of the original text intact, without citation and minimal POV change, concluding it's better to let the reader decide for themselves, having been given more complete information. Those predisposed to "find conspiracy in a bubble gum wrapper" simply will, despite any attempt to balance the picture.
The one line I took out last time, and did again, was "However, although African-American jazz stars appeared with the Kenton Orchestra from time to time as featured soloists, very few black musicians ever played in his band." This is clearly POV, and Kibiusa's comment ("90 musicians from Kenton's band are listed here -- how many are black?") reflects that as well. Very few is a subjective statement, and subsequently a major POV statement. Furthermore, the musicians listed are "notable" and certainly not a complete list. We could easily get into easily get into a discussion of the reasons why there aren't as many blacks listed in the notable list (the atmosphere of touring and the venues until the late 60's; competition for "notables" from Ellington, Basie, Parker, Garner, Cole, etc etc; the decline in number of quality jazz musicians from the mid-60s onward; and on and on). Kibiusa's question also opens up the question of then comparing the number of white musicians in, say, Ellington's organization at the same time; he had the same issues to contend with when it came to booking venues, especially in the South.
Wikipedia is a staunchly neutral entity. Giving both sides of an issue is a key to that neutrality.--ADWNSW (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1956 Canada Telegram and Leonard Feather's Response

message: This passage, and its citation:
"The complex machinations of Kenton's private life have recently been disclosed in the 2010 memoir "Love Affair", written by his daughter Leslie Kenton.* The author of a number of books on health and wellbeing, Leslie Kenton, having come to terms with long-buried feelings and memories, describes her experience of life within the Kenton family and discloses family secrets, including the incestuous relationship she had with her talented and celebrated, yet self-doubting and frequently troubled, alcoholic father."
does not belong in the "Early Life" section, and should have a section of its own. One wonders if it is relevant at all, as it deals with a debatable topic and, as such, is not encyclopedic. It seems placed where it is to call attention to the book.Pinikadia 15:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the "tell all" stuff placed up front? 

message: I've just read his daughter's account of this and it looks like classic "repressed memory syndrome", an idea that has been roundly debunked in countless psychiatric studies.  I'm going to do further research into what she said and who "extracted" these memories for her. A passage as damaging as this to his reputation can't be allowed to stand without more digging.NBeddoe (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your POV opinions on psychology aren't pertinent to encyclopedic content. What is pertinent is that the accusations were made and are in a published source.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't know as we should delete it altogether. We should include the material contesting his daughter's veracity, though. Herostratus (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Include the information, sure. Include the counterargument against it, sure. But it needs more elaboration and needs rewriting from a neutral point of view. If it's part of his history, and subject to scrutiny, some balance on both sides should be part of the section. (Not gory details, mind you, but a balanced overview of the credence/disavowal of the claims.)160.3.170.250 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we remove this altogether please?

message: According to his New York Times obit (here) and the Encyclopedia Brittanica (here), Kenton was born on February 19 of 1912. Allmusic (here) has him on December 15 of 1911.
I note that the Stan Kenton live album Birthday In Britain was apparently recorded on a birthday concert that Kenton gave in Nottingham -- on February 19, 1973. If this recording date is correct, Kenton himself thought that his birthday was February 19, it appears.
A website called Solid gives his birthday as February 19 1912 while noting that some sources give December 15 1911. And indeed in addition to Allmusic, it appears that Starpulse gives the date as December 15 1911, as does Amazon, IMDB and probably others do as well, but Biography.com gives February 19 1912.
Google responds to a query on "Stan Kenton birthdate" with "Best guess for Stan Kenton Date of birth is December 15, 1911", but Wolfram Alpha returns a query on "What is the birth date of stan kenton" with February 19 1912.
(Interestingly, here is described a concert called the "Stan Kenton Birthday Celebration" sponsored by the Los Angeles Jazz Institute -- on October 24 of 2011. October 24 is not near to either December 15 or February 19, but the year 2011 would have been the 100th anniversary of Kenton's birth only if he was born in 1911. Not sure what to make of that.)
A lot of these sources are unreliable, and none is completely reliable, and some are merely parroting info found at another site I assume. A birth certificate would be the gold standard. Kenton himself would not necessarily be a completely reliable source as people are known to be mistaken about their own birthdates.
But absent a birth certificate, we have the two most reliable sources -- the NY Times and Brittanica -- giving February 19 1912, in addition to which Kenton recorded a birthday concert on February 19, assuming the info given for that album is correct. Given that, I'm comfortable with our stating that February of 19 1912 is Kenton's birthdate and not December 15 1911. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, another editor was kind enough to point to the 2010 book Stan Kenton:This is an Orchestra! (link is here) which clears this up: according to the book (page 1) Kenton was conceived out of wedlock, and to cover this up his parents used the February 19 1912 date, a date Kenton believed to be true "well into adulthood", but his birth certificate is correct and states December 15 1911. So that's settled I would say. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: Much of this article has been copied straight from the AllMusic webpage for Stan Kenton. While a reference to AllMusic is given at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, this does not prevent it from being merely a direct, illegal copy. These parts should be rewritten with an eye to the other information that is out there on Stan Kenton so that this encyclopedia entry can accomplish more than regurgitation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.21.67 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I don't know what that grammy awards nonsense at the bottom is, but it should be removed.Cosprings (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammy

message: User:Cosprings made some changes which may have been fine but weren't explained; when I reverted them (on grounds of not being explained) he did it again, again without explaining, and so here we stand.
It's not clear what User:Cosprings is trying to do here. It looks partly like standard cleanup and format improvement, but a list of Kenton's compositions is also removed. Maybe that section is inappropriate, maybe it isn't, and maybe its arguable, but with no edit summary I can't judge. People need to use edit summaries when making extensive edits. The Grammy Awards template is removed. Whether this is appropriate I don't know, but Kenton did win some Grammys apparently; if this template isn't included for other Grammy award winners it shouldn't be here, but if it is, it should be, an so on.
I invite User:Cosprings to explain what's up here. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  re Cosprings edits 

message: An editor has deleted the (partial) list of Kenton's compositions (link), and I've restored it per WP:BRD, and addressed this in detail on his talk page (link here: User talk:Cosprings#re Stan Kenton again) and we've gone around again and are at 2RR. Not wanting an edit war, or at any rate seeking to establish the precedence of WP:BRD and [WP:CONSENSUS]] if one does develop, I open this section where the editor or any other editors can discuss the pros and cons of this deletion. Herostratus (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  re list of compositions. 

message: I am going to be blunt...the article on Stan Kenton is at a high school level.
I have been referring back to it in order to create other articles that relate back; much of it makes one scratch their head.  I am going to try to slowly make this better over the course of the next few weeks/months.   
The biographical pic needs to be better also, there are many fine (and flattering) photos of Kenton.  The Ellington/Basie/Herman pages have good ones, what happened here?
The article misses many important points from key books/reviews and does not even have a Grammy awards and nominations table, let alone other things (Kenton had deservedly earned).  Much of the prose is written like the National Inquirer.
I am no "Kenton rah rah" person but this is woefully absent of many things.  I hope to make it far better so be patient. 
Shelyric (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs editing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stan Kenton. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114020451/http://www.bell.k12.ca.us/decades/unitela/1900/30s/1930/stankenton/skenton.html to http://www.bell.k12.ca.us/decades/unitela/1900/30s/1930/stankenton/skenton.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified