Talk:Birth of the Cool

message: 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)
thread_title: Recording Order

message: 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)
thread_title:  Complete Birth of the Cool 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category error? 

message: Substituted at 09:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1578474/a/Birth+Of+The+Cool.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012063305/http://www.jazz.com:80/jazz-blog/2008/9/3/birth-of-cool to http://www.jazz.com/jazz-blog/2008/9/3/birth-of-cool
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1578474/a/Birth%2BOf%2BThe%2BCool.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jazz.com/jazz-blog/2008/9/3/birth-of-cool
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924120325/http://www.jazz.com/dozens/the-dozens-the-birth-of-the-cool to http://www.jazz.com/dozens/the-dozens-the-birth-of-the-cool
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) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106162232/http://www.scribd.com/doc/35654619/Miles-Davis-Birth-of-the-Cool-Hal-Leonard to https://www.scribd.com/doc/35654619/Miles-Davis-Birth-of-the-Cool-Hal-Leonard
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1578474/a/Birth+Of+The+Cool.htm
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) 08:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hey, Wikipedians... 

message: , 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  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)
thread_title:  Release date edit war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: The crushing disappointment of the Pyrrhic victory. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Which release date should be kept? 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Conclusions

message: Sources that name February 1957 as the release date:
* 101 Albums That Changed Popular Music by Chris Smith
* Miles Davis: The Complete Illustrated History by Ashley Kahn
* Why Jazz Happend by Marc Myers
* The MOJO Collection by Mojo (magazine)
* Album review, All About Jazz, by Jim Santella
* the African American Registry's entry on Miles Davis
* Davis, John S. (2020). Historical Dictionary of Jazz, p. xxiv
* February 9 1957 trade ad in Billboard
... Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: The crushing disappointment of the Pyrrhic victory. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion