Talk:Keith Emerson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Photo quality

Boy...that off-color overexposed awful image of Keith Emerson is just SO much better than the prior image - if Keith saw that he might have preferred dying first not to have this pathetic piece of visual drek he was kind enough to do with a fan posted and distributed worldwide on Wikipedia. Congratulations on finding that lovely free image. Tvccs 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tvccs, this kind of comment is what is really harmfull to Wikipedia. Be respectful to other editors. Avoid using improper humor. --Abu Badali 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To find you, after the massive attack you have launched on my images, to be discussing respectfulness, I cannot find the words. It would be my hope that users who find and substitute free images would find ones of far better quality before replacing same. I have little doubt Keith Emerson would abhor the image being used here being distributed as a primary image worldwide. Tvccs 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If he abhors it, he has only to give us a freely-licensed replacement and we'll use that instead. —Chowbok ☠ 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And as a photographer, I would never in a hundred years have posted such an image for publication - it's fine where it was, as a nice fan image, but has no place being used as it now is on Wikipedia. Tvccs 02:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material that does not provide citations

Regarding the removal of the insertion about the influence of Billy Ritchie on Keith Emerson, I can of course understand the rationale, but citations can be provided to back up this fact - it's in the public domain that this influence exists. Also, I find it rather confusing when the source re Jack McDuff says a similar thing, yet seems to remain similarly unsourced. It was the McDuff connection that encouraged me to put the piece in. On reflection though, I think it's right to remove it, on the grounds that it is, after all, Keith Emerson's page, not a clipboard for someone else's intrusion. But the fact is, the influence of Ritchie exists - Emerson was (till he saw Ritchie) an organist who sat down and played in the background. When 'The Nice' saw 1-2-3 (at the Marquee early 1967), they sacked O'List (guitar), and became an organ trio, much in the style of 1-2-3. But how can such a reference be included tastefully? And without offence to other contributors? I'd rather someone else did it......can anyone help with that? Matthew.hartington 09:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note in this context that after O'List left the band The Nice actually wanted to employ another guitarist, as mentioned, among other places, in this article by John Covach (a musicologist and researcher of progressive rock):

http://www.ibiblio.org/johncovach/elp.htm - "Inquiring prog minds will want to know that O'List briefly replaced Mick Abrahams in Jethro Tull, and that Steve Howe was offered O'List's spot in the Nice".

This fact casts a serious doubt on your theory that The Nice decided to become a keyboard trio after seeing 1-2-3 and fired O'List for this reason, as it seems they didn't decide to become a keyboard trio, but fired O'List for other reasons and were trying to get another guitarist (Howe declined the offer, as was mentioned elsewhere). - Debby, 1 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.89.193 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

untitled unsigned arguments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has veered off from improvement of the article to general discussion of the subject and unrelated material. See WP:NOTAFORUM.

---

Please resist the urge to change the entry back for the third time. It's pure vandalism. No informed critic or experienced keyboard player believes other pop or rock keyboard players of the time were technically, harmonically, or melodically in the same league as Keith Emerson. By indicating otherwise, you are providing your opinion -- which is fine in conversation, but isn't called for in this venue. Wakeman et al are all good players, and perhaps if the sentence were rewritten along those lines it would be more apt.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 7 July 2007

Just read your declaration on Emerson - breath-taking that you should think YOUR opinion is the only one that matters! To say that Emerson - fine keyboard player though he is/was - shouldn't even be judged against the others because he's supposed to be incomparable, is franky ridiculous - and PURE opinion - yours! - not the opinion of so-called 'informed' critics. Such opinion definitely doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it's based on nothing but hero-worship. In MY opinion, his real legacy wasn't so much his playing, as making the organ a leading instrument in the mind of the public. And from what I read, he took that idea from one of the others to do it. Surely you should have a more balanced and unbiased view? You don't do your hero any good by claiming the unclaimable.

P! R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.48.6 (talk) 7 July 2007

I'm not giving my opinion; I'm explaining a consensus opinion. Some folks (apparently you are one of them) believe the other players are on par with Emerson and others feel Emerson is a superior player. That is all I've said. Your statement equates the two of them, but disregards the views of a number of other folks who do not agree with you. It is childish of you to persist in changing a balanced statement. If you persist in giving your opinion and thinking your views are more important than other folks, I'll be happy to continue to change what you've written to something more accurate. By the way, Emerson is not my hero. But his playing was superior to any other rock musician of the time. Any keyboard player knows that, including the ones you've listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 8 July 2007

Just found your message - you're not giving your opinion? And Emerson isn't your hero? Then what is that piece about his playing being 'superior to any other rock musician of the time'? That's YOUR opinion! And the following sentence about 'any keyboard player knows that, including the ones you've listed' - have you interviewed the other players to check their opinion out? I can safely bet that not one of those thought that Emerson was superior, though I've no doubt they respected his ability - as he would respect theirs! It's also very telling that you could only consider that I (or anyone!) would at the best think the other players were 'on a par' with Emerson, many people would, I know, consider some of the others superior to him - and not just the public, I've seen that said in print many a time. We can all be selective about the references we choose! For my money, they were all good, each in their own way, it's naive and simplistic of you to put one ahead, though there's nothing wrong with you having a PERSONAL preference - that's different to a statement of fact. And by the way, you're wrong about me too - I've NEVER contributed ANY edits, just read them, so I didn't 'list' anyone...you're mixing me up with some of the other people who also don't share YOUR opinion! So save your 'childish' remark for your adversary in editing - personally MY opinion is you're both way off beam, and have no balance in your thinking at all. It's definitely YOU who thinks your opinion is the only one worth having - that's what I object to. You're welcome to your own thoughts, but don't try and foist them on the rest of us. It will never work. For goodness sake, try and be a bit more balanced!

I could say a lot more, but being rude to other editors isn't in the Wiki spirit - you should remember that too....and try and write a piece that we can ALL live with!

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.131.65 (talk) 14 July 2007

DEAR P,

You asked if I'd interviewed any of the other players to learn their views on Emerson. Well, I know two of them personally having played with them, so I suppose an interview is unnecessary. They're in awe of Emerson and believe he's in a class of his own in terms of rock keyboardists or players from the "progressive" era. You have a nice day, skippy.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 21 July 2007

Thank you for writing, at least that's a start, and communication is a better way of dealing with disagreement than slagging each other off from a distance, especially when there might be common ground somewhere! But you're still shooting yourself in the foot (OK, perhaps the toe!) - it's good that you actually know two of the guys listed, and say you know their views, but that doesn't include all the guys, does it? So your statement is still not valid, it's sweeping rather than specific. You feel it has weight, because of the guys you know, and I agree it does give some authority, but (in my opinion!) you should stick to mentioning the two guys you do know - that would, if anything, make your point stronger, providing you're bold enough to put your connection to them - and their direct words from their mouths - in print. I'd go along with that, no quarrel. But anything else is mere conjecture and opinion. Another angle I see is that any of the guys who were really top level would never say than anyone else is better. That makes me think that you knew the (relatively!) weaker players on the list, ie, Rick Wright and Tony Banks - not that they weren't good by any means! - but arguably more 'background' players than the other three. And I also think some people not on the list would have a thing or two to say about it all - Vincent Crane (my personal favourite!), Jon Lord etc. I have seen Wakeman's printed thoughts on Emerson, plenty of respect, but certainly not any concession of superiority! And, as is well-documented, Emerson took the idea of lead organ from Ritchie, so I doubt that there would be much love lost there either, given the way history worked out. On that score, I've also seen a comment by Blinky Davison that the most impressive organist he saw was 'the guy from Clouds'. As Blinky was the drummer of the Nice, that seems pretty damning. Then again, to put it in perspective, I gather that Blinky and Keith weren't exactly crazy about each other around the time the Nice packed up, so it could well be a deliberate dig, rather than a valid point of view. And knowing Keith's fragility about Ritchie, he would certainly know where to aim the barb. All we on Wiki should be doing is reporting the facts, and let the readers decide for themselves. that's all I'm saying.

So you 'have a nice day' too! And thanks for writing - really!

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.14.118 (talk) 27 July 2007

Sorry you think I'm shooting myself in the toe, P. Rick (Wakeman) and Billy are two fine players, and one would be hard-pressed to argue that they didn't make significant contributions in their respective bands. But, like most good musicians, they have no difficulty appreciating other talented musicians and giving them their well-deserved due, and they were the two musicians I referred to earlier. I understand that you believe top-level musicians "would never say anyone else was better" than they are, but in fact it happens often and it's always refreshing to see. Musicians have no greater fans than other musicians, P, and while I understand you believe I've been giving my own opinion, all I can tell you is that Keith's musicianship was regarded on an entirely different level by the players themselves who were also making records at the time. Just as Hendrix' playing was considered more accomplished by gifted players like Eric, Pete and Jeff (Beck), so Keith's playing was regarded as more accomplished by his peers. Perhaps you hear that as a criticism of the other keyboard players of the time, but it's really just a comment on Keith's inimitable playing. (Interestingly, Hendrix and Emerson were considering forming a band not long before Hendrix passed.)

That's not to say Emerson was an accomplished classical or jazz player, as he was neither -- and he was happy to acknowledge that. But in the rock venue, in terms of his technical proficiency, his harmonic choices, his references to various "high" and "low" styles, often within eight bars of each other, Emerson's playing was on a completely different level from his peers. Take a listen to the remarkable solo in "Take A Pebble" sometime or to the writing on "Fugue". These are the sorts of things that bring out the "fan" in a musician.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 28 July 2007

I appreciate you writing, and you have a lot of interesting things to say. But I'm afraid I think you must have got the wrong end of the stick in your conversations with them, despite actually playing with Wakeman and Ritchie (though I'm very impressed that you have, of course - it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on their respective qualities and faults). I certainly have never seen anything that Wakeman's said that conceded any kind of superiority, and I've seen things in print by Ritchie that were, if anything, slightly dismissive of Emerson, perhaps a bit of sour grapes because he believed Emerson took all the credit that he thought should have been his? One quote (I think it was 'Record Collector') about Emerson by Ritchie was 'I knew him when he played sideboard'. So that doesn't quite square with 'awe'. I bow to your superior knowledge about musicians, and the contacts you have, and I'm certainly not qualified to judge on who's best by any means, but I still think there's far too much opinion and bias in what you've written to date. A shame, because I've enjoyed your comments here - why don't you use more of that voice in the piece itself? It seems to me that you have a lot to contribute, perhaps more in the technical comments? If you could just take a bit more of objectivity, you could make a real worthwhile contribution. Or perhaps you're working towards that anyway?

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.159.73 (talk) 28 July 2007

DEAR R

R - Let me get this right, you knew and played with Billy Ritchie? I thought he packed in after Clouds? Can you share what he was like as a person and a musician? According to Mojo, he's never been traced. Vanman404 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

P,

Sometimes, inclusiveness -- even well-intended inclusiveness -- can create, if not exactly bias then inaccuracy. The intent of Wikipedia is laudable, but the execution can sometimes leave something to be desired, in my admittedly limited view. Not sure if you're familiar with Douglas Hofstadter, but he's a brilliant guy who wrote a fascinating book in the late 70s that won a Pulitzer Prize in the States. One might think Wikipedia's entry on Hofstadter would be written by his fans, appreciators, colleagues, and well-regarded scientists with an interest in physics, cognition, mathematics or music, and therefore display a high degree of accuracy and insight. In fact, the entry on Hofstadter turns out to be filled with errors, according to a rather bemused Mr. Hofstadter in a recent interview. A while back, I read a few paragraphs in another Wikipedia entry which covered the opening chord of The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night. In attempting to name the notes and name of that extremely unusual chord (for a hit pop song circa 1964), the entry was similarly well-intended, openhearted, inclusive, fair-minded, open to disparate views, and mostly wrong. I suppose one might reasonably say in that case the formal name of a chord and the specific notes which comprise it can only have a single correct answer and that, over time, someone will inevitably stop by and correct the inaccuracies just as others will no doubt iron out some of the inaccuracies in Mr. Hofstadter's entry. That's certainly a hopeful view, but in practice it can sometimes work the other way, P, where more opinions are slathered on in desultory prose like a kind of verbal paste.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 30 July 2007

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing problem

COULD SOMEONE TRY TO FIX THE PAGE? I TRIED TO ADD A FOOTNOTED QUOTE, BUT THE TEXT WHICH FOLLOWS IT DISAPPEARS FROM THE PAGE (ALTHOUGH IT IS STILL IN THE EDIT SCREEN. R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 11 July 2007

Re Billie Ritchie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has veered off from improvement of the article to general discussion of the subject and unrelated material. See WP:NOTAFORUM.

---

I know for a fact that Billy Ritchie would never have expressed any kind of 'awe' about Keith Emerson - the facts are second hand to me, but Billy Ritchie's attitude was that Keith was a fine player, albeit a 'living room' player, and certainly couldn't live with Billy 'live'. Take away the histrionics - the very fine histrionics, I have to admit - and dynamically, Keith was no match for Billy, who was probably the most Rock-orientated keyboard player of the time. I think it's dangerous to peddle such anecdotal nonsense, you will always be found out. Matthew.hartington 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Matthew,

Now it is I who am in awe of you. I'm impressed that you "know for a fact" something about my experience. There's a good lad.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 3 August 2007

Dear R,

It's true I can't know your experience, or explain how you came to the conclusions you did - How the wires came to be crossed is one for you to figure out, not me. But let me say it clearly - according to my sources, there's no way that Billy Ritchie would agree with the words you've ascribed to him. If you know him personally (which I don't, it's true), perhaps you should ask him again, let's assume you were just misinformed in some way. I'm sure you're a good lad really. Matthew.hartington 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be pleased to discuss this in a serious way with anyone willing to do so without making it personal. Billy's playing was well-suited to his group, in my opinion, but comparing him with some of the leading keyboard players of his day is a bit like comparing New Colony Six to Miles Davis. Many of Billy's peers were superior players, which is not to say Richie was a poor player. He was a limited player who made the most of his limitations. "Watercolour Days" sounds reminiscent of Emerson's playing, only Richie's playing is much simpler and to be frank, not difficult. In "Cold Sweat" Richie's note choices are the most obvious ones he could have selected. "Lighthouse" is playing on autopilot. His playing on "The Carpenter" is sometimes out of time and sloppy, which is somewhat unusual. "I Know Better Than You" contains very simple playing and it's perfectly fine, of course, but again most players of the time could have played something similar. "Get Off My Farm" seems fairly representative of Billy's playing as it contains a number of good beginnings of musical ideas which run out of musical steam. Someone asked what Billy was like and I thought he was a very nice man when I knew him.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 3 August 2007

I certainly don't want to make it personal. And I bow to your superior knowledge about the music. It's impressive to note how much you've studied that. But you're mistaken in saying that Ritchie would agree with your views about Emerson. Nuff said. Matthew.hartington 09:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew,

Like anyone else, musicians say all sorts of things to the press. Sometimes, there is little distance between what one really feels and what one tells a reporter or interviewer. On the other hand, one sometimes uses the press to be provocative, settle scores, blow off steam, or otherwise make news.

As I recall, Keith had a lot of respect for Brian Auger's organ playing. I don't know whether he mentioned this in press interviews, but I know he felt that way. I don't think he rated anyone higher in the late 60s, particularly amongst British organists.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 3 August 2007

Dear R, I respect your views, and you show quite clearly in much of what you say that you know what you're talking about. Yet there are contradictions. And I'm annoyed that you called the Clouds page 'vandalism', when after SmackedBot, quite justifiably set out the citations request, the page got into a mess, I was simply straightening it out as best I could. I don't believe by any means it had reached where it should be, but I was satisfied it was in better shape than when I began. Why don't you use that obvious talent to help construct, not destroy? Matthew.hartington 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - Better still, why don't you help me construct the page? And can we discuss it on my user page (or yours?). It doesn't seem fair to Keith to have all this here (not your fault it's happening, I agree).Matthew.hartington 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, I've never been to the Clouds page and when I used the word 'vandalism' I wasn't referring to that page. I'm relatively new here and do not know how to properly make citations, although I made an honest effort to try when the importance of citations in Wikipedia entries was explained to me. It's not clear to me what you feel I'm 'destroying'. Other than making a few edits in the beginning of Keith's entry, and citing what the All Music Guide writes about his playing, I've simply joined the discussion on this page to try to better understand your views and those of the other fellow.

Regarding the views of music critics, these folks have their place and the best ones, in my view, make an impact by encouraging their readers to seek out recordings by artists these readers might otherwise not have been exposed to. On the other hand, with a few notable exceptions, most music critics know very little about music - whether creating it, making it, or understanding how to listen to it. Music criticism is difficult, just like literary criticism is difficult, and most folks are not up to the task even when they call themselves critics. Don't get me wrong, Matt. In my line of work, I've spent time with many music critics over the years and they are often engaging to talk to and interesting people in their own right. But there is often a great difference between the way a non-musician hears music and the way a musician listens to it. So, while you may well have come across critics who feel strongly about the playing of an individual musician or group, it is equally possible that the prevailing view amongst musicians differs from the critical view of non-musicians.

When the great jazz pianist Oscar Peterson happened to turn on his TV one night in the 70s and saw Keith switching between ragtime one moment and a fugue the next, he was so taken with the performance that he immediately called up his friend, Count Basie, and told him to turn on his TV. I love that story, which I'm reasonably sure is not apocryphal, because the view of most music critics of the day was that there was something essentially non-musical and bombastic about so-called 'progressive' music groups like ELP. But to a musician - ironically a hero of Emerson's as a teenager - Emerson's playing was accomplished and, given its venue, very unusual. Not long after this, the two men met and Peterson asked Keith to be part of a BBC show Peterson was presenting.

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 3 August 2007

Dear R, sorry, I've obviously got the wrong end of the stick. Thank you for your patience. And I like that story too. Matthew.hartington 14:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With ELP: Notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Emerson#With_ELP

The entire "notes" paragraph (and a long, unbroken and verbose one it is) lacks a single citation, is highly speculative, uses personal opinion and analysis better suited to an album review than a scholarly, encyclopedic article on the person Keith Emerson. Many of the statements are also provably false through cursory googling of actual sources, as opposed to the writer's reliance on his own opinions and biases.

Therefore, I've removed the entire section. It seems to be at once an apologia for Emerson's habit of using other composer's work uncredited, as well as a long, worshipful ode to Emerson. It certainly has no place in this article. Its information is highly speculative and without corroboration by any source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.83 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) == Dialog == R:- just come back from holiday to find the dialogue I seem to have dragged you into. Then again, I know you can handle it. Interesting comments about music generally, why don't you sign up and commit yourself? I think you could contribute a lot, especially a few new pages on artists who're not represented here yet.

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.158.160 (talk) 25 August 2007

Hello again, P. Hope you had a good holiday. I appreciate the vote of confidence. Be well.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.79.74 (talk) 16:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Dream Theater

There has been an attempt to remove my trivium that Keith's favorite current prog band is Dream Theater. This comes from the Chris Comer interview linked to on this very page. I intend to fix the citation once I learn how to better use wikipedia. I thought I would put it out there in case someone else would like to do it first. Nigel Napalm 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For citations you need to read WP:CITE. As for adding useless "trivium", perhaps reading WP:TRIVIA will help. 205.174.160.6 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy! Nigel Napalm 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Matthew, I missed it the last time, but I noticed now there's something fundamentally wrong with your time line. You wrote:

"Emerson was (till he saw Ritchie) an organist who sat down and played in the background. When 'The Nice' saw 1-2-3 (at the Marquee early 1967), they sacked O'List (guitar), and became an organ trio, much in the style of 1-2-3."

But The Nice were formed only in May 1967 and O'List left sometime in 1968, before they released their 2nd album (November 1968). Seems that in September 1968 O'List was still in the band, if the timing of this video is correct (September 29, 1968):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NArOpaKC3E

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UQpAzLg-38I

Actually, in a 2006 interview O'List kinda claimed the rights to the entire stage act of The Nice:

http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/magazine/2006/10/davy-olist-interview.php

"My musical directions for Keith was for him to follow what Pete Townsend and Jimi Hendrix were doing and applying that to the Hammond organ; swinging arms, feedback, distortion, wild flare, etc., which he did for me. I knew organists had never been seen like this before. I knew it would work on the audiences. We were more like a circus act, so different for the audiences to look at. They were startled! This idea was so new to rock and caught a lot of attention from press, record companies, audiences, etc., that’s why Jimi Hendrix loved us; the whips, the flying doves I put into the audience, the smoke bombs, the guitar and organ exploding together, the theatric costumes I designed."

I guess Keith Emerson would have something to say about that :-)

I'm not saying there was no influence as I don't know, but to be included in an "encyclopedic" article it should have more solid reference and a factually accurate timeline. You're saying The Nice saw 1-2-3 in early 1967, - that is before The Nice even existed as a band, - and immediately after that sacked O'List and became a keyboard trio, while The Nice just started playing together as P.P Arnold's band around mid 1967 and O'List was still in the band in 1968, and after he left The Nice were for some time trying to replace him with another guitarist (and even while O'List was still there Keith Emerson was by no means a background keyboardist in The Nice).

And BTW, re standing at (and on) the keyboard, neither of them invented it. Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis were doing that since the 50s and I doubt rock keyboardists growing up in the 50s and 60s never heard of them and their stage antics. These guys were playing standing up, they played the piano with their feet (I've heard Lewis was using also other body parts, like Emerson, but not on the videos I have), they stood, walked and danced on top of the piano, according to the legend Lewis also set fire to the piano on several occasions (he denied it in an interview some years ago). In the 60s Jerry Lee Lewis, whose career was ruined in the US for his marriage scandal in the late 50s, was performing in Europe, including the UK. I have video clips of both Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard from British TV shows in the 60s. Here's one of Jerry Lee Lewis on British TV in the 60s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEc-RazQlY

Not that it's news of any kind, but the point is I really doubt either Emerson or Ritchie or any other British rock keyboardist active in the 60s have never ever heard of the most famous American rock pianists who established this style and never laid eyes on them and just incidentally invented this kind of stage act all by himself. So as far as the stage act goes, neither of them was an original. - Debby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.53.157 (talk) 13 April 2008

Oh, and one other little thing that slipped my mind - before Keith Emerson turned 20 (somewhere between 61 and 64) he already had a keyboard trio called - you'll never guess - The Keith Emerson Trio. Here you have a list of the bands Emerson played with before The Nice (I have another better reference, but not in English):

http://www.classicwebs.com/emerson.htm

And here's another page where the trio is mentioned:

http://mysticrivermusic.com/mrweb3/elp.html

I should get Edward Macan's book on ELP, so I'll have a better reference. Meanwhile you can see it on Amazon - Edward Macan's "Endless Enigma" - Amazon lets you search inside and read a long excerpt, so you can see the Keith Emerson Trio mentioned on page 5 here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader?ie=UTF8&p=S01D&asin=0812695968

Just go to page 5.

It might not have been a rock trio because Emerson was more into Jazz at the time, but he was no stranger to the concept. 1-2-3 might have been the first rock keyboard trio and maybe there were others we've never heard of, but your assertion that The Nice saw them early 1967 and then sacked O'List to become a keyboard trio is just factually incorrect. - Debby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.52.245 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moog image

Consider using Image:Doug Dino KeithEmersonsMoog.jpg which is claimed to be his old Moog. Bovlb (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hand surgery in 1993

didn't emerson had hand surgery in 93? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.56.48 (talk) 18 July 2007

Hand problems

We need a section or at least something more than a passing mention about Emerson's hand injury. If it's serious enough to cancel a tour over, it's notable enough to at least mention exactly what that injury is. General-Septem (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Flying piano rig

Although a synth in a piano's "body" is sometimes used today, Emerson used the flying piano rig at the California Jam in 1974 before synthesizers could produce a realistic sounding piano sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Honky disambiguation

There is no disambiguation from the Emerson solo album link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.224.239 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no article on the Emerson album, so I deleted the wikilink, rather than have it point to the unrelated page Honky (album). TJRC (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Emerson's Moog modular synth now going?

Some may be interested to see a Moog System 55 modular synth, currently being auctioned via eBay, that is claimed to have been Keith Emerson's backup equipment (not the model seen in most publicity photos). Based upon the seller's reputation, the description is most likely correct. If nothing else, it's interesting to see the many photographs of close-up parts of the equipment itself.

http://cgi.ebay.com/MOOG-SYSTEM-55-MODULAR-VINTAGE-ANALOG-SYNTH-SYNTHESIZER_W0QQitemZ220692890768QQcategoryZ38071QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp4340.m8QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DMW%26its%3DC%26itu%3DUCC%26otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D4796139757945657070

JH49S (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Ritchie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has veered off from improvement of the article to general discussion of the subject and unrelated material. See WP:NOTAFORUM.

---

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 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Sounds unfair to Keith - meant to say 'best live organ sound'. As I said at the start, to me Keith and Billy were the two guys that stood out. Not fair to single out one against the other, my mistake.DaveEx 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, that whole earlier debate was a real slogfest, wasn't it? But I enjoyed these comments. I'm a lifelong proghead, but at 51 (and a Statesider) too young at the time to have ever even heard of Billy Richie until this very evening reading the Keith Emerson page here. I agree strongly about Keith being a set-piece player and not really a soloist. (You have to credit his left hand, though.) As for two-fisted keyboard players, I'd direct eveyone in this discussion to a Hammond player hugely influenced by both The Nice and Mike Ratledge of Soft Machine — Dave Stewart of Egg, Hatfield and the North, Bruford and National Health.

Here's an example of how technique per se becomes a sterile discussion. Stewart never had a tenth of the chops of Emerson but did at least as much to innovate and define the possible for early 70s (middle tech) keyboard sounds. His Hammond fuzzwah was unique -- an actual custom-built fuzz unit, not amp overdrive. There's some brilliant (11/8) live manual counterpoint at the end of "Lobster in Cleavage Probe" and in fact the recent Hatfield archive live releases (Hatwise Choice, Hattitude) show his left hand effortlessly comping on Fender Rhodes while twittering away on fuzzwah Hammond. His harmonic vocabulary — both in 20th-century classical and jazz — was broader, deeper and generally gnarlier than Emerson's. And unlike Emerson, he was quite opposed to cramming his odd-metered classical and jazz ideas over a Procrustean four-on-the-floor (whether duple or triple-time) rock beat the way Emerson metrically butchered both "Blue Rondo a la Turk" and Leos Janacek's "Symphonetta" (aka "Knife Edge").

And on top of it all, he could genuinely solo. No two live Hatfield versions sound the same.

Ideas trump technique every single time. Snardbafulator (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK this is a few years after the fact and I can`t quite figure out who`s P and who`s R but I think I agree with P..anyway the guy who likes Keith Emerson..Emerson is a classical pianist who just happened to play in a rock band the same way Frank Zappa was a serious composer who just happened to play guitar in a rock band..there is really no one else in popular music that you can compare them to..as to whether any contribution they have made will stand the test of time in the classical music world only time will tell..I think it will but probably in Emerson`s case more as a footnote to his popular music...Zappa on the other hand will probably be remembered as one of the more significant composers of the 20th century however again..only history will tell..I personally find Emerson`s music more listenable but my musical taste are evolving...the point is I think the 1st person (P?) is right..to compare him to Rick Wakeman is a superficial comparison because they both just happened to play keyboards in a rock band around the same time doing music that sounded similar to most people but was actually very different..ELP was rooted in classical music and YES played music that was really just free form jazz..ok maybe someone is going to disagree with that but as players they are on different levels..I don`t know about Billy Ritchie but I`ll look into him..if I find out something that contradicts this OPINION I will come back here and amend it..or we can open up a discussion about who were better musicians...ELP and YES or say the SEX PISTOLS and the RAMONES..what about the RUNAWAYS? When they debuted everyone thought they were a punk band because they were young...actually they did introduce Michael Steele to the world..sometimes it`s just hard to tell.--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I know who Ritchie is now..yeah he`s great...he`s no Keith Emerson any more than Steve Jones is Andres Segovia Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RE; comments on Emerson's touring with Moog instruments

Can I query the assertion in the Biography that Keith Emerson was the first musician to tour with a Moog synthesiser. I would like to see reference for this, as I understand that Sun Ra, a major jazz figure, performed live with Moog synths before 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.20.214 (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death: gunshot wound to the head

See http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7127455/keith-emerson-dead-emerson-lake-palmer - being investigated as a suicide. // Internet Esquire (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's a much better source, which I think we can report now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The wonderful Daily Mail says he was found by his girlfreind. But, of course, we can't use that tabloid source, can we? (even though, as usual, it has the best picture gallery). Martinevans123 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources today have reported he was found dead by his girlfriend - the only thing that was being hushed up was the manner of death (which started coming out after Rolling Stone tweeted it). I see no reason not to use Daily Mail if what they are saying is reasonably similar to what is being reported in other sources. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Then it might be a worthy addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Article sourcing

Trying to add references and clean up this article a bit in case it is featured as a recent death on the Wiki "In the News" page. I think I have covered everything from the beginning of "Instrumentation" through the end of "Personal Life" with the exception of the pipe organ section (maybe I can do that tomorrow) and part of the "Playing style" section. If anyone wants to have a go at adding necessary citations for the sections outside that chunk, please feel free. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You've made a massive improvement to the article sourcing, Blinkster. Well done. I don't see any major problems with posting Emerson's death to ITN on main page. But it's not up to me to decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is it up to? 75.130.204.227 (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You can make your views known here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It should already have been in notable deaths..he was a very well know musician..his death seems to have been overlooked by the powers that be. 66.169.94.203 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the powers that be, eh? But I disagree. He was mentioned frequently on BBC television and radio news and has had well-written obituaries in all the leading UK broadsheets. Even the "Wiki-powers-that-be" managed it within 61 hours of the news breaking, which is "quite surprising". Although less than 12 hours on the front page a bit disappointing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

His death also made American networks and newspapers, which was nice as he hasn't appeared here in a few years to my knowledge. And Rolling Stone of course was all over it. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

By the powers that be I was referring to the Wikipedia powers that be..unless I`m hallucinating which I suppose is possible Keith`s death hasn`t made it to the main page yet..I`ve looked everyday since I heard the news..I guess it`s possible I missed it but if it hasn`t this is literally the last straw for me taking Wikipedia seriously..public opinion aside he was one of the more influential musicians of the last 30 or 40 years..in my opinion..if it matters..pretty close to the top. 75.139.90.83 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Keith's death was on the main page Monday, for probably about 12 hours. The reason it was not on there faster, as shown by the discussion that I believe Martinevans123 linked to and that I referenced, is that the article was deemed to be not in good enough shape to go on the Wikipedia front page. Most of the article was missing sources (as in huge sections with no source at all). It also did not read very well. It was finally approved to go on the main page only after myself, Martinevans123, and a group of other people spent a large amount of time (2 days in my case) sourcing everything. Once a recent death is put on the main page, only 3 recent notable deaths can be up there at once, so when other notable people die then the people on the page are pushed off in chronological order. If those of us who fixed the article had not spent a huge part of our weekend doing so, he would not have been put up at all. This is also why I posted up at the top of this discussion that the article needed citations added, in hopes that other editors would help in order to get the sources in there faster, because otherwise time would have run out (3 more notable people would have died) to even get Emerson on there at all let alone for 12 hours. I hope this makes it more clear, but I guarantee you he was up there as I was the one rushing at 3 am EDT Monday to finish fixing the article so it could get on the front page at all. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And to be very honest, this man had so many fans that I found it weird that no one had stepped in to fix his article before his untimely demise. Aside from not being a huge prog fan myself, I tend to not go around fixing articles for popular musicians and actors because they usually have a lot of supporters who are way into doing that. Most of the articles I write or fix up are about relatively obscure people who tend to not get as much attention to their articles as celebs with a worldwide fan base. The lesson from all this is that if there's some artist or musician that you really love then you need to put effort into making sure their page looks good before they pass away to make sure they will get the proper recognition. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Some GAN thoughts

So while this sits in the queue at GAN, I figured I'd give the article a read, as I have extensive GAN experience. These are all just thoughts, so feel free to disagree. RIP Mr. Emerson, wish you knew that any fan would have helped console you out of your dark corner.

• Lede summarizes article well and all facts are reiterated in the article. However, it seems odd to mention Black Moon, an album that is a sidenote to ELP's discography. I'd recommend either removing it or adding mention of ELP's landmark releases (Tarkus at a minimum). Y done; took out Black Moon and put in Tarkus and Brain Salad Surgery instead. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• In addition, the lede should include a sentence or two regarding his death. Y done; also summarized the last 15 years of his career a bit. Lede was written by someone else before we improved the rest of the article so needed some tweaking to get up to date with what's in the article now. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Article structure:
  • {{TOClimit}} with a parameter of |3 would shorten the TOC. Y done TheBlinkster (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Likewise, using semicolons in place of fourth-level headers would work well for the numerous single-paragraph sections. Some of these short subsections may be better combined and not divided. Ditto for combining short paragraphs together where possible. Y I combined a number of short paragraphs in the final 2000-2016 section to make it more prosey and less listy. However, I chose to keep the subheaders because I think they are useful for breaking up big long chunks of text into topical subsections, especially nowadays when people have a 30-second attention span and many are reading on a little mobile phone screen. The subheads help the reader follow the bites of information and get to the section of interest, just my opinion (we used the same technique years ago when I had a job writing tech manuals for people with a grade 4 to grade 8 education). I also added a short summary of subsections for the reorganized 2000=2016 section. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The 1980s – 1990s career section begins with a short summary of the following subsections. The same should be done for the Personal life and death section.Y done TheBlinkster (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The Further reading section should be below the references per MOS:LAYOUT.Y done TheBlinkster (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Refs:
  • Refs 70, 82, 92, and 140 use ISO date formatting. Date formatting should be consistent throughout (in this case DMY). Y done for all the wrong formatted dates I could find in the article TheBlinkster (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Several refs provide no publisher, which is a minimal requirement for any citation (except notable newspapers or periodicals, which can omit a publisher in favour of the publication). 1, 9, 12, 25, and 57 jump out on quick scan
  • Macan, Emerson, and Duxbury's books should be mentioned in a bibliography since the refs are shortened footnotes. I see the first two in the Further reading section.

I'll read through the article prose later and add notes for grammar/flow. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. I don't suppose you could actually do the review at GAN? (Or are you a significant past contributor to the article?) TheBlinkster (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not, but I'm notoriously unreliable with commitments. However, if you have a goal of improving the article for a timely TFA or DYK, I could devote this evening to one of my musical idols. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just figured since you were reading it anyway and seem to have a ton of experience with GA reviews then why not just have your readthrough be the official one :) if that's not breaking any rules. I never put anything up for GA before, largely because it seems to take forever to get anything reviewed and also because the quality of the reviews seems to vary widely. It would be good to see someone with a long track record in action, because then I could do like we're supposed to and review two others myself in return for the one of mine being done, and I would have a good example to follow. The other thing is that Keith only made it onto the ITN page for like 12 hours because when he died his article was in such poor shape, it took 2 days and a bunch of us to fix it enough just to get him on there, so if there's any chance of getting him into the DYK or down the road an FA then it seems like he deserves that (I'm not even a huge prog fan and I only saw this band once at High Voltage but the man obviously had a long and interesting career with the piano concerto and all). But if you are busy that's OK, I can wait. TheBlinkster (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing unsourced and dubiously sourced material

As shown at the top of this talk page, this article is currently a Good Article nominee. In view of this, as well as the fact that the article prior to Keith's death was about 80 percent completely unsourced, and it has required major efforts on several people's part to get it all sourced, I am going to be deleting unsourced or dubiously sourced material going forward. There are a large number of reliable sources out there dealing with Keith and ELP, and anyone who wishes to add to the article should be able to find one to support their addition and cite it in a form reasonably consistent with the rest of the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The Nice at the Royal Albert Hall

The article currently says: "He played the Royal Albert Hall Organ at one of the Nice's last shows in 1968..." Does the autobiography, on pages 102-103, use the phrase "one of the last"? I don't have the book to be able to check. But looking at set-list sources such as this one, suggests it really wasn't one of their last at all. Given that the band was active from 1967-1970 (and then again briefly in 2002) June 1968 was pretty much mid-career for them? So I think we should add the date and remove "one of their last". I see the RAH has an interesting page, about the topic in general, on their website: [1], although they too mistakenly describe it as "a flag" when it was, in fact, a painting of the flag. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Circumstances of death

The paragraph about his death seems inaccurate. There's the statement that he died on 11 March but the announcement today (11 Mar. 2016) on the ELP Facebook page said that he died last night which would mean he died on 10 March, Then there's the mention of Palmer being shot in the head. Something wrong there since I've heard of nothing happening to Palmer. Peter (Cactus Pete) (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rolling Stone magazine, which is normally pretty reliable, says "died Friday". I think the name "Palmer" was a mistake, now corrected. As another (very experienced and inestimably able) editor has said, TMZ doesn't look very reliable. I expect more reliable sources will soon appear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this source, but it looks tabloidy and unreliable to me. It may be accurate, but there's no need for us to publish what is essentially gossip about the cause of death. We should wait for more reliable information. (Another editor) = Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Most sources published today are now saying he died "last night". But no time is given. So maybe RS have made a mistake there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This source, just added, says: "Mari Kawaguchi said she found Emerson dead at around 1:30 a.m. at their condominium in the coastal suburb of Santa Monica, California but he could have died Thursday evening or night. She declined to disclose the cause of his death." So time and day of death is still undetermined. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources stating died 10 March [2]. WWGB (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Date of death

How do we explain the image here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly because late at night on 10 March in California, where he died, would have been early on 11 March in England, where his family lived and where he was buried. We don't know that at the moment, I don't think. If it's confirmed, we can draw on WP:TIMEZONE to clarify it in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I must admit, I never thought of that. I assumed that there would be a time, or at least a date, of death on a death certificate and that this would be used by the undertaker for any memorial. But I guess relatives of the deceased can actually put anything they like on a grave memorial? i.e. they are not bound by any legal requirement to put the "correct" date? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It probably makes most sense to go with the time in the place where it happened - that is, the earlier date - unless we know definitely that he died after midnight. I'm pretty sure that the family can put whatever they like on the grave marker, within reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I figured also that the family would use the date of death on the death certificate for their gravestone, so I changed it to Mar 11. I mean, why would they care whether it was one date or the other date? But your point about the time zone difference between UK and California is well taken. I guess we have to just point out that there are conflicting sources and leave it at that, since otherwise people are going to be on here changing it from one to the other constantly when they see a source saying one or the other. I also looked for an official death certificate or other public record but doesn't seem to be available anywhere as of now. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, do we actually have any print source like a newspaper other than Ultimate Classic Rock website saying he died on the 10th? It seems like the major news sources like NYT and BBC do not have an actual date of death and just say he was "found dead on Friday". It seems like the most reliable sources are themselves not sure exactly when he died which led me to think the family must have the best info. I'm going to change it to "found dead on the 11th" unless we have a source definitely saying he died on the 10th. Edited to add, OK, I see CNN said "Thursday night" which would be March 10. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've now changed the article to add news sources with the death date of 10 March, and also to point out the difference between news source date and date on the grave marker, so we don't get some editor changing it back from one to the other every week hopefully. The 10 March date used by several news sources seemed to come from the ELP official Facebook page that was posted on Friday March 11 and said he died "last night" which could have been read as night of 10 March; however I suspect a lot of the papers didn't want to commit themselves to a date since it's a bit open to interpretation whether he died before or after midnight based on the info given. I think this is the most accurate we can be unless and until a death certificate, or some reliable source with exact times, pops up. TheBlinkster (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The date and time is just not clear, is it. Thanks for clarifying, as best can be done, in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Beside the grave of his mother

I appreciate that he may very well be buried next to his mother, however the Kielty source says nothing about that. It is not sufficient that an editor talked to someone who went to the funeral or even saw it themself. Need a print source such as a published photo or an article stating that he was buried next to his mum. Otherwise it's OR. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

True. I accepted it in good faith (anyone remember that?), but I agree that it's not properly sourced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There don't seem to be any details in the press about the funeral, only Dave Kilminster's photo on Facebook. So we don't know the location. Somewhere near Worthing I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

String quartets

Apparently, Emerson composed three string quartets that had their premiere a year and a half ago. We don't seem to have a section for works for Emerson as composer; only as a recorded performer (i.e. Discography). TJRC (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He was a main composer with both the Nice and ELP. And the first paragraph says: "Emerson wrote and arranged much of ELP's music on albums such as Tarkus (1971) and Brain Salad Surgery (1973), combining his own original compositions with classical or traditional pieces adapted into a rock format." But I agree. more on the three string quartets would be good. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [3]

This would be a nice fit for the section that already talks about his appearances with South Shore Symphony. My only issue with dedicating a whole section to his classical compositions apart from the ELP stuff is that he seems to have come to the classical world post-ELP a bit late in his life. But if you have a source by all means go ahead and expand a bit. I only found the couple articles on the South Shore Symphony stuff that are already cited in the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I had not noticed the passage about the South Shore Symphony; that seems a good place to add it. TJRC (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keith Emerson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Having got The Nice to GA status myself, and being more than familiar with some of the Hammond antics (including spring reverb crashing, hitting reverb springs with a stick, and turning the motor on and off), I'm happy to review this.

Lead

• The lead is too long and lop sided. I would put an opening paragraph giving his name, dates of birth and death, and a brief overview of key notability (Nice, ELP, 60s - 70s prog). The second paragraph could describe his career, while the third can describe critical / commercial success.
• There is too much information about his death in the lead. I would leave it as "died 11 March, Santa Monica, CA". Any controversy over the date should be relegated to a footnote in the body.
• Emerson is widely regarded as one of the top keyboard players of the progressive rock era is too POV. John Peel said ELP were a waste of talent and electricity, and he has a point. Some criticism in the lead, particularly about how he was seen as bloated and out of touch by punk, would be justified.

Did the way that punk viewed Emerson affect his status as a progressive rock musician? It surely should not; otherwise we might reasonably state that Bach was seen as out of touch and antiquated by acid jazz, etc. etc.

Early life

• The reference to Martyn Hanson's book needs a page number
• However, he never received any formal musical training, and described his piano teachers as being "local little old ladies" - is this talking about Emerson or his father?
• He learned western classical music - do we have any examples? Bach must surely be one.
• He used jazz sheet music from Dave Brubeck - this implies Emerson borrowed Brubeck's personal copy of the score, which can't be the case
• The quotation at the end of the second paragraph is a little over-long and could be trimmed down, or paraphrased
• and the Hammond became his instrument of choice in the late 1960s. Emerson acquired his first Hammond organ, an L-100 model, at the age of 15 or 16 - why does the prose jump to the late 1960s, then back to c. 1960?
• The flamboyance for which he would later be noted began - "would later be noted" is part of the words to watch, could this be reworded?
• he produced some explosion and machine gun sounds with the Hammond organ - does the source say how he did that?
• Trevor Pinch and Frank Trocco's book needs a page number.
• Gary Farr and the T-Bones should be mentioned in this section, not least its where Emerson and Lee Jackson first played together

The Nice

• I think there needs to be a little more about how the Nice were formed. It's not like Emerson suddenly woke up one day and said "let's form a prog rock group that combines theatrics with classical pieces played really fast" (although some might claim that's exactly what he did for ELP....)
• To increase the visual interest of his show.... I thought it was specifically because Emerson wanted to compete instrumentally and theatrically with Jimi Hendrix, could this be sourced and worked into the article?
• turning it over made it feed back - while that's what it looks like when watching video footage, what's really happening is that pushing the Hammond's magnetic pickups towards an amplifier causes audio feedback; can this be clarified?
• Worth mentioning that Emerson got his knives from Lemmy?
• Emerson's show with the Nice has been cited as having a strong influence on heavy metal musicians. - cited by whom?
• Emerson became well known for his work with the Nice - "well known" is a phrase to watch, it would be better to state specific chart positions, sales figures, or critical praise from prominent journals (such as Melody Maker)
• What makes progarchives.com a reliable source?
• ...an upcoming Nice concert at the Royal Festival Hall, London, with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Vickers helped patch the Moog, and the concert was a success - a success according to whom?
• Emerson's performance of "Also sprach Zarathustra" from the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey was acclaimed - this is confusing, I guess you mean Emerson's performance of the theme at the 1969 RFH concert, but it's not specifically clear from the prose this is what you mean? (Also, acclaimed by whom?) Is there any link to Deep Purple's The Book of Taliesyn, which also has a cover of the piece and was released shortly before this concert?

Emerson, Lake and Palmer

• I think there needs to be more information about how ELP was formed ie: The Nice and King Crimson sharing a US tour late '69, and also why Palmer was chosen instead of, say, Mitch Mitchell
• There seem to be too many sub-sections here, and the main one stops just after formation. John Peel's "waste of talent and electricity" quotation looks to be in the wrong place.
• Worth mentioning that the Isle Of Wight Festival was the band's second gig?

Use of synthesizers in ELP

• The Trevor Pinch and Frank Trocco source needs a page number.
• Is there a link for the "Monster Moog" NYT source?
• The last paragraph in this sub-section is unsourced
• Is there information about the whereabouts of Keith's original iconic Moog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meterstab (talk • contribs) 09:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As composer and arranger

• The piece [Rondo] is introduced by an extensive excerpt from the 3rd movement of Bach's Italian Concerto - only on ELP live performances and only as a throwaway introduction before switching the Hammond on and off again to go into the main theme.

Theatrics

• The first paragraph somewhat duplicates things mentioned earlier
• The block quotation is too long and should be considered a copyright violation
• I think this section is in the wrong place. It covers an overall element of playing style, rather than a specific event like the rest of the "history" section. It also duplicates the "playing style" section further down.

1980s - 1990s career

• What makes classicbands.com a reliable source?
• What makes vintagerock.com a reliable source?
• (1984 film) Best Revenge, notable because he worked collaborated with Brad Delp from the band Boston on this soundtrack - this sentence doesn't seem to be make sense, again there are words to watch : "notable because". Also this claim is not in the source given.
• Emerson, Lake & Powell had some success, and their sole album is considered one of the best of both Emerson's and Lake's careers - considered by whom. Also this claim needs a better source than classicbands.com
• and drew comparisons to "the worst moments of Love Beach - the source verifying this doesn't appear to be formatted correctly
• There is mention here of Emerson moving to Los Angeles; but the rest of the article says Santa Monica. What's the difference?

2000 – 2016 career

• This entire opening section is unsourced
• What makes moogsoundlab.uk a reliable source?
• according to the webpage of an artists' management company representing Emerson - I don't think this is necessary; the reader can infer it from the source

Personal life

• The source "Macan, Endless Enigma, p. 42" needs more context
• The Guardian source says Emerson was divorced in 1994 - I don't think it violates WP:BLP to add that.
• In 1993, Emerson was forced to take a year off - the source says it was 1994
• The September 2010 announcement is too long; can it be trimmed?
• As said above, the discrepancy over date of death is best relegated to a footnote

Pieces based on other works

• Emerson would occasionally cover or sample other musical works in his compositions - I can't recall any actual sampling in the Nice or ELP's output; was this a later activity?
• This section contains too many lists. Per the GA criteria for list incorporation, these should be converted as prose, or moved to a separate list article.

Playing style

• In addition to such experimentation, Emerson also incorporated unique musical stylization into his work.

Discography

• http://www.saskatoontalenteducation.com/great-music-the-nice-elegy.html is a dead link
• http://www.grappa.no/en/simax-classics/cd-dvd-three-fates-project-keith-emerson-band-in-symphony/ is a dead link

Sources

• In my view, to meet the "broad in coverage" part of the GA criteria, I would expect to see more citations to Pictures of an Exhibitionist, which is likely to contain information other sources gloss over. There are a number of problems with some sources at a first glance; all book sources must contain a page number, and all CD / DVD sources must contain a time, so other people can verify what is written.

"See (section)"

• A number of places in the article have reading directions (eg: "see equipment", "see health issues"). These should not be in the article (I'm sure there's a part of the MOS that covers this that's relevant for GA but I can't find it).

Summary

• At first glance, there seems to be a lot of work needed to improve this to meet the GA criteria. I'll go through the article in-depth now, and make further comments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to close the review as "not listed" at this point - there is just too much work required to improve the article to GA status within the 7-day window. I would recommend looking through all the improvements I have mentioned so far, give the article a thorough copyedit and make sure all prose is neutral. I am also still suspicious that all of the claims in the article are actually verifiable, as I believe a lot of sources were retro-fitted onto existing text. That leads to problems further down the line. I'd recommend getting hold of just a handful of really good sources, such as Emerson's autobiography, and use it to fact-check everything in the article, before bringing back up to GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, many thanks for your detailed review. I had about given up on anyone ever looking at it, at this point. I agree with your decision to fail it for now as you're right that this is not all going to get fixed within 7 days, especially due to my schedule at this time (I've had to reduce my Wiki time quite a bit due to my work becoming more busy than it was earlier in the year, as well as some other issues), and the need to lay hands on more sources which would likely take a few days in itself as I don't have good library access and would probably need to order them. The detailed list of things to fix is helpful as I can address each in turn and note "done" as a way of keeping track. Can I just ask if you listed all of your initial concerns? If not, I'd appreciate your adding anything else to the list when you have time, so I or other people can be sure to address those areas before re-nominating the article down the line. Thanks again for your help. TheBlinkster (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)