Talk:Van Morrison discography

message: The BANG compilations -- T.B. Sheets and Bang Masters -- are not listed in the discography or the template, which seems to me a significant omission. (I added T.B. Sheets to the discography and template; someone removed it from the latter.) Whether Van authorized them, received royalties, objects to their release, etc., is completely beside the point. They are legitimately issued, are not bootlegs, and they show the artist at a significant stage in his development. Cloonmore (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the albums should be included in this discography, even though they were not authorized by Van - Blowin' Your Mind' wasn't authorized and is still featured here. Although I don't believe this shows Van "at a significant stage in his development" because his musical arrangements, musicians or ideas weren't allowed to be used, because Bert Berns didn't let him.Kitchen roll (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On Blowin' Your Mind!, he was under contract to Bang, and Berns released the album without his approval or knowledge  but  In 1973-or whenever he was under contract to Warners.  How does including this album in his discography show a significant stage of his development?  No one can tell this by looking at a Wiki article.  You'd have to hear the CD.  Do other artists have all releases from previous record labels on their "official" discography?   I say if you can show a similar situation on another important artist's discography or if other editors with a "proven record of NPOV editing"  on this article believe it is the acceptable Wiki policy have a go. — You guys have fun with this, seems like causing controversy on Wiki is a time filler for some.  Agadant (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The compilation album TB Sheets is probably the most "famous" out of these compilations, so I suggest (because there is already an album article on it) it should say something on it about the other releases and how this was the first, and most notable (likewise on the discography). Although I agree with Agadant that it would be stupid writing an article for all 50 million of them and adding them to the discography - it still is important that people can tie these unauthorised albums in with Morrison's past.Kitchen roll (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, it seems that "assume good faith" has gone out the window for some. Agadant, I don't understand your objections. No one can ever tell anything about any musical artist's development from looking at Wikipedia. You always have to hear the music. Further, whether Van was under contract w/Warners or anyone else in '73 is irrelevant. Better questions might include, are these tracks legally issued, of historical interest, and/or available elsewhere? As for your challenge to show "another important artist" whose discography includes a previous label's releases, I encourage you to read up on Mr. Bobby Zimmerman's 1973 album Dylan. Another example is Iggy's Kill City, released after he had signed with RCA. Cloonmore (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no justification for multiple, separate compilation lists. It only confuses the discography. A compilation is a compilation, regardless of whether the artist approved it or participated in its release. For those who need one, here's yet another example: The Kink Kronikles. Cloonmore (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the compilations should have a new section, as they were not released under any acknowledgement of Van. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Cloonmore getting so involved in such a controversial issue here?  They have not ultimate authority and have made numerous inquiries on Van Morrison talk pages always challenging everything concerning my editing: such as why is this song notable?  How can Cloonmore be more knowledgeable about these matters than the editors who have followed his recordings and read biographies about him?  Cloonmore admitted that he/she  is not a Van Morrison fan but a Bob Dylan fan.  Fine, anyone can edit any article but to go on the articles with constant controversial questions and edits is not acceptable in my opinion and I stay off of articles where I can't be NPOV. Agadant (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ag, you have it exactly backwards: it's self-professed Van fanatics like yourself who are least likely to possess an NPOV. Complaining that Van didn't authorize a release is a classic POV position. Who cares whether the artist authorized it?  You challenged anyone to name other "important" artists who have unauthorized releases in their discog. I gave you 3, and you've responded with exactly nothing (except contentiousness, that is). T.B. Sheets is a famous comp. that belongs in the discog. Bang Masters collects all the notable Bang recordings in one place and has been reviewed by Allmusic.  Your objections are weak and POV. And if you have a position about a song's notability, then the way to deal with it is to comment on the song's Talk page, not to whine here.  You appear to be way too close to this article and unwilling to accept any but your own POV. This isn't a fanzine; it's an encyclopedia. Cloonmore (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not a "self-professed" fanatic. (Have never said so.)  I like his music yes, but I am mostly interested in improving Wikipedia and his articles were very POV in a negative way when I came upon them and decided to read up by buying used biographies for a few dollars. I HAVE admitted to being a biography addict. Once I read a few of the biographies - I did become an expert of sort so why not use the knowledge in a positive way. 
*And I didn't comment on the talk header about the song's notability because I knew you wanted me to, so you could pull something like this.  Why, I don't know, I guess you're bored!  The songs were obviously more notable than the ones I saw you were editing elsewhere and not making similar comments on. —Spoke for itself to me. Tell me why is this so important to you?  There's some kind of personal element here and that is obvious. Agadant (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, Cloonmore without me knowing it you were in the meantime marking many of the Van Morrison songs with a notability citation in an obvious temper fit.  The only thing I had left changed about your edits to the Van Morrison discography is that the Bang compilations are listed separately.  — And yet you couldn't tolerate that even and so went off on the songs.  Some of them this time were written by Kitchen roll.  He and I have both worked hard on those song articles.  I'm not sure if your grudge is against me or Van Morrison.  I only know you do have a problem on being NPOV on these articles..Agadant (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The song notability issue that you continue to harp about is being addressed with tags because, as you've admitted here, you've refused to discuss on the appropriate talk pages. Now, try and put aside your multitude of suppositions and imputations of bad faith about other editors and address the issue at hand here. You asked for examples of other "unauthorized" releases, and I gave you 3. Now, the same question back to you. Provide some examples of separate discographies or chrons for an "unauthorized" compilation, as you've proposed here. Cloonmore (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The timing of my comment shows that I admitted it not knowing that in the meantime you were placing notability tags on the song articles.  The proof is there in the edit time.  You did not start because of my comment.  There is nothing to argue about..The songs have all the criteria for being notable and you know it but even at Christmas want to argue.  Don't you have gifts to buy or something else to do? Agadant (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a rest. You whined about notability at 17:11, and I challenged you on it at 19:16. What came later was your lame excuse for not dialoging. Add something substantive to the subject of this thread or don't bother posting. Cloonmore (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you lonely?  I saw the same comment about substantive to the subject addressed to you in a discussion.  Don't you have anyone to talk to? I'm not the one as I don't like to argue.  Merry Christmas to you —although it seems like you must not be into the Christmas season. Agadant (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BANG Compilations

message: The contractual obligation tracks he cranked out for Bang are not included here.  Is this because they are considered non-notable? Lfh (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contractual obligation tracks 

message: The song "Real Real Gone" never charted!  But is listed as charting 18 US Rock.  This not correct!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.56.153 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on Van Morrison "charting history" 

message: I would think a discography should include an "other charted songs" section for non-single songs like "Into The Mystic" which charted at #1. Anyone objects? --Muhandes (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other charted songs