Talk:The Band/Archive 1

Archive 1

picture caption

Is the caption to the picture correct? I'd swear Manuel is the second one in that pic... --patton1138 13:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm positive it's correct, Richard Manuel is the pianist/a vocalist for the band. You're thinking of Levon Helm, the second one in the picture, he play's the drums and also does vocals. (Ngoah89 18:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Levon's NPR interview

Can anyone validate what Levon Helm says in this NPR interview concerning Robbie Robertson being overcredited in writing the songs? (Ngoah89 18:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

The Band's website

The link to The Band's website should be edited to say "A definitive The Band resource" instead of "The ultimate The Band web site" because ultimate is an opinion. Although the website is not official, it has been reviewed as the "definitive resource on The Band on the World Wide Web" (Ngoah89 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I support the merging of the Levon and the Hawks article into this one. Levon and the Hawks could then become a redirect. -Wisekwai 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed ::Supergolden:: 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree --Alcuin 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Logical merge, I agree

I definitely agree. Seems perfectly logical, and I am surprised it has not already been done. ---Charles 02:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. There wasn't much in that article not already here, other than weasel words and POV junk. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 00:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dylan comment

I think the comment that Dylan made about the "thin wild mercury sound" was actually about the album Blonde on Blonde. (rhm01 15:24, 06 September 2006 (UTC))

True, I've read it many times in reference to BoB, and it's in SACD version of BoB's liner notes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.187.26 (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

The comment does indeed refer to the Blonde on Blonde album - Dylan stated that the closest he ever got to the sound he heard in his head was the sound of Blonde on Blonde, not, specifically, The Band. I've removed the reference accordingly.

Also, Dylan actually says, "Get fucking loud!" on the Free Trade Hall recording. It's not even open to interpretation - listen to it and its unmistakeable. Nsign 13:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Nowhere near enough inline citations.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article push?

Any interest in getting this article in shape so as to see it listed as a good article? I would be interested in doing so, if there are other editors willing to help. --- RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

From Bacon Fat to Judgement Day

I just reverted a change on the date of release for this compilation. The main article says it was supposed to be released in 2006, but never appeared. Is there any indication it is coming out in 2008? Or should we put a note in that section saying it is as yet unreleased? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

External Link suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this re-print of a 1971 interview story with Richard Manuel from The Band. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the External Links section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Influence

A few covers by the Counting Crows, Black Crowes and the like hardly represent the sum of The Band's influence. Which is to say, that this section doesn't begin to scratch the surface. The answer is to follow the prescribed path, that is, to dig up the sources that have thoroughly documented and analyzed The Band's influence, then write something of significance. Yes, that's more difficult and tedious than blogging (which is what these add-ons amount to), but the rewards are far greater because everyone benefits...editors, Wikipedia, and most important, current and future readers. Allreet (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Band, Fairport, and The Beatles

The claim that The Band's "Music From Big Pink" influenced the "production" of The Beatles's "Let It Be" is problematic in a number of ways. I cannot understand why my edits are being reverted.

It is a bold claim to make in the first place, since The Beatles were of course the most influential popular music group of all time. A claim of influence on them must thus be seen as rather notable and must furthermore require strong support.

The current source of the claim is an article on Fairport Convention. The article quotes guitarist Richard Thompson's acknowledgement of the influence of "Music From Big Pink" on his own band. This of course perfectly supports The Band's influence on Fairport Convention. However, the author of the article also gives his own broad comments on the record's influence:

"The spark for Fairport taking this watershed turn was the Band's 1968 album Music from Big Pink, the record that - along with Bob Dylan and the Band's Basement Tapes bootleg - brought about a widespread musical volte-face, in which what remained of psychedelia was replaced by a new rootsiness. Among the rock aristocracy, its influence was evident in the Beatles' ill-fated back-to-basics project Let It Be, the Rolling Stones' purple patch that began with Beggars Banquet, and Eric Clapton's decision to call time on Cream."

As is evident, the claim of influence is very sweeping and general. Is the critically acclaimed string of Stones album that began with "Beggars Banquet" (and presumably ended with "Exile on Main Street") also indebted to the influence of "Music From Big Pink"? What about the influence of, say, Gram Parsons?

In addition, is it really ideal to have a piece on Fairport Convention supporting a claim of influence between two other bands? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a Beatles or Band source here?

Finally, as the references I attempted to include showed, the back-to-basics approach of the "Let It Be" sessions was already anticipated by developments predating the release of "Music From Big Pink" ("Lady Madonna" single). Furthermore, as the Band article itself points out, "Music From Big Pink" did not emerge out of a vacuum, as other artists had also pursued similar "rootsy" directions (Dylan, The Byrds). Thus, if there was a general atmosphere of going back to basics in 1968 that could possibly have affected The Beatles, that influence cannot be credited to "Music From Big Pink" alone. 90.224.30.71 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a sentence in the "influence" section of the article which says, in regard to the album Music from Big Pink, "Its influence includes The Beatles' production of their back-to-basics album Let It Be, and Fairport Convention's recording of Liege & Lief, an album that established British folk rock as a distinct genre." This statement is sourced to an article in The Guardian, a reputable source. However, an anonymous editor took issue with the statement, and removed it. I restored it, saying we defer to the ref. not to an editor's opinion. Later, the same editor added the following, which I removed as unnecessary:

The consensus among Beatles scholars, however, is that the sessions for the Let It Be album were driven by the band's own desire to return to their rock 'n' roll roots, a move begun already with "Lady Madonna" in March 1968, preceding the release of Music from Big Pink.

A source is given for this, which I am sure is reputable, but it is still irrelevant. This article is about The Band, and one comment about them influencing Let It Be does not need to be countered with a ref. that is not relevant to this topic. Anyone have any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be mildly in favor of the article not saying that Music from Big Pink influenced Let It Be. Yes, The Guardian is a reliable reference, but looking at the article, the statement seems to be more of a rock critic's judgment than an indisputable historical fact. If you had, say, an interview with one of the Beatles, or George Martin, mentioning it as an influence, that would be different. Another approach to this question would be to change the article to say something like, "John Harris of The Guardian has stated that 'its influence was evident in...'", along with the reference. I'll be interested to see what other editors say about this. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss the influence question too easily. I need to get home to my sources to suggest article changes, but Big Pink was clearly a major influence: Clapton has cited it often as influencing his move to more mellow stuff and The Beatles apparently did play "In a Mission" during the Let It Be sessions. The Beatles were not in a vacuum and The Band was quite original in its day. I'll be back with some sources if I can find some. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 02:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion so far! I'd just like to clarify that I'm not disputing the major influence of Big Pink - its impact on, for example, Clapton and Fairport is well-known and well-sourced in this article. What I am questioning, however, is its influence on the Let It Be sessions specifically. Yes, The Beatles did go through "In A Station" during these sessions, but then again they ran through hundreds of songs during those sessions. The Band's influence on George Harrison is of course well-known (and also noted in this article), but given Harrison's comparatively limited creative input in The Beatles, that influence is usually accepted to only have manifested itself in his solo output. And notably, Harrison's creative role in the Let It Be (or Get Back) project was even smaller than usual. The idea for the project was originally McCartney's, and Harrison (as is evident from the film) was not exactly enthustiastic about the whole thing (in fact, he left the band at one point). 90.224.30.71 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Genres

"Roots rock" has been removed, initially because three categories was allegedly enough, now because of being repetitive. To what is not evident from the edit summary, and each of the categories mentioned has it own article, so while there is some similarity, they're not identical. I won't revert again but I can't see the issue with keeping this. ThatSaved (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Picture

Suggest that a picture NOT showing the group in its "backup to Bob Dylan" mode would be more appropriate as the lead photo for the article.VAMark (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. It doesn't even show the whole group. Could we just use the cover of their second album cropped?
Ulmanor (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Clapton Statement During Last Waltz

This is incorrect, this was stated in an interview that was included on the 1988 Box Set "Crossroads" this needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.61.186 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide the details of the reference for the footnote, it can easily be fixed. Is it possible the Crossroads quote was from the Last Waltz concert? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No It was not stated during the Last Waltz. Clapton didnt even speak during the last waltz, they said "Play a little guitar, Eric Clapton" he walked on stage, plugged up and played. Then walked off. He're is the exact quote from the box set:

"Since about 1968, Clapton had been growing bored with virtuoso musicianship and more interested in songs that had clearly delineated structures and put across a pleasing groove. The Band's Music from Big Pink, which came out that year, made a striking impression on him and fueled his dissatisfaction with cream. Discussing Cream's break up in Rolling Stone in 1974, Clapton said 'another immersing factor was that I got the tapes of Music from Big Pink and I thought, well, this is what I want to play- not extended solos and maestro bullshit but just good funky songs'"

So, basically, he did not say anything about it "changing his life" nor did he say it during the Last Waltz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.61.186 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He did say it, at the Bob Dylan 30th anniversary concert. IHeardFromBob (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon and Toussaint

How are John Simon and Allen Toussaint "associated acts" of The Band? John Simon is a producer, not an "act" at all. Toussaint worked with The Band on one album and did horn arrangements for The Last Waltz. Bob Dylan and The Band were associates for years, practically inseparable, Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks are an associated act. But, to compare these two to the former is flawed. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD man. Just make the change, and if objections arise they will be addressed. :> Doc talk 04:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, and was reverted. So, now, I am trying to figure out what the case is for their inclusion there. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you completely on keeping the producer John Simon out. As for Toussaint: when material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the burden of the editor who wishes to include that material to back it up with reliable sources.[2] Doc talk 05:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Simon is more than just producer of their first two albums, he played quite a bit on them. He also played on most of the Band albums throughout the seventies, and on Jericho. He is often referred to as the "sixth member" of the band. Band members also played on Simon's debut album. Toussaint did arrangements on Cahoots, Rock of Ages and The Last Waltz as well as for their tour following Cahoots. [3] [4] [5][6] Per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts, they can be considered as associated acts. These two have been in associated acts for a long time, WP:BRD says that this means it's concensus. WP:BRD also says that if a change to previous concensus is reverted, it should be discussed before making it again. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

An associated "act" is overwhelmingly considered to be a musical performer in their own right: this is why George Martin (who produced, arranged, conducted and even performed with the Beatles) is not listed as an "associated act" on their article, but they are listed as an associated act in his article. Luckily for your case, Simon had some solo albums and could therefore be considered an stand-alone "act". But if he didn't I think there would be no reason to keep him as an associated act, now matter how long it's been here. The template you linked says the following should be avoided in this parameter: "Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer".As for BRD (which is not policy, BTW): you do not have to discuss something before you change it, which you implied in your revert of Republican Jacobite. He was bold, you reverted and now you're supposed to discuss. If someone else makes the same change and you revert it - you're down in the revert count. If a third editor were to make the change and you reverted it... you see where it can lead. Doc talk 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Luckily"?

I believe that the template guideline is referring to acts that were strictly producers or managers to another act, not ones who also performed (and arranged, as in Simon's case) with the act. Such as, say, Nick Mason producing for The Damned.

I never said that BRD was policy. Nor was I implying that making bold changes was not good form, or that Jacobite should have discussed it first. I meant that he should discuss before changing it a second time. Which he did. He went on to discuss the issue. You then reverted the revert - touting BRD, while at the same time ignoring it. "Revert count" is no way to determine concensus. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So you think that because Simon performed and arranged with The Band that that alone makes him an associated act? Per my example; did or did not George Martin (also referred to as "the fifth Beatle" by some) arrange and perform on album tracks with The Beatles? He most certainly did, and the article backs it up. By your logic on this issue, Martin should by the same rights as Simon be listed as an associated act in the Beatles article. However, I would bet the farm that if you tried to make that change on that article it would never survive. Producers are producers, not associated acts. Doc talk 23:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that. That isn't my logic at all. What also makes Simon an associated act is that he is, or was, an act unto himself. Martin was not, as far as I know. Even if he was, it's up to the editors of that article as to whether or not he would be included in the associated acts. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

... and that's why I said "luckily" before. If he wasn't an act unto himself there would be no chance of his being included... right? Like George Martin wasn't. The reason I know that the editors of that article would shoot it down is: it's a FA. This article should strive for the same thing. Doc talk 07:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Luck has nothing to do with it. Reality does. Facts do. Simon was added for the reasons I've outlined above. Those same reasons are why he's been there for so long. Jacobite removed him because he thought that he was merely a producer which is not the case. I can give even more reasons as to why he should be included. Simon being included in the infobox is not detrimental to this article's quality at all. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the George Martin example? Do you see the parallel and the "bigger picture" I'm getting at? Note that while no one editor has reverted you twice: two that are speaking right now are against your one for this decision. Consensus is emerging, but until others speak up (which will obviously have to happen) that consensus is to remove him from the infobox. Shall I place a RfC template on this page to gain a broader consensus? Doc talk 08:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep going back to George Martin. He was not an act unto himself. You've said this yourself. If Martin was an act unto himself, then perhaps it would be reasonable for the editors of The Beatles to consider adding him to associated acts. I'm not all that familiar with Martin's work with The Beatles, so I can't really say.

We're going in circles on this. You've asked for rationale and I've given it. Yet, you seem to be ignoring it. John Simon is absolutely an associated act of The Band. Those familiar with the subject know this and that's why he is there.

You should not speak for RepublicanJacobite, as he hasn't given his opinion since rationale was provided. Previous concenus was established on this as Simon has been listed under associated acts for a long time. No one had an issue with it until he was removed due to a lack of information. However, if you'd like to request for comments then do so.

Please explain why you think that Simon does not belong within associated acts. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I used "luckily" (which you seemed to dismiss) is because the fact that he's a stand-alone act is the only thing you've got going to include him as an associated act. If he performed, arranged, conducted, etc. (like George Martin, whom you should definitely look into as one of the greatest producers of all time) but wasn't an act that recorded solo albums, it would be a moot point. In other words: all the points except that he was a stand-alone act are irrelevant when you consider him as a producer. So yes, we're agreeing with each other, sort of. Doc talk 03:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I dimissed your "luckily" for a reason. Luck has nothing to do with it. Anyhow, are you saying that since he also produced for The Band, the fact that he played on many of their albums, arranged and acted as musical director is not relavant? He also received royalty money, according to him,[7] for some of his contributions to Big Pink and The Band, meaning that he did some composition; is that not relavant either, simply because he also produced? Members of The Band played on two of his solo albums; is that not relavant? Does that not constitute an association? Are you saying that none of these points matter, because he produced as well? That one role negates all of his other roles? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that anything besides him being a solo act unto himself is irrelevant. If you refuse to look at and see the parallel between him and George Martin, I cannot help you understand why that is. We do not list producers as associated acts, no matter how closely they worked with a band. If they had a solo album or two as a performer, then they can be considered an associated act. George Martin was the "fifth Beatle": but was not an associated act. He did more with the Beatles than Simon did with The Band (i.e. produced, arranged, composed, conducted orchestral arrangements that he wrote, and performed) - and he's still not to be considered an associated act. Why? Because he's not known as a solo musical "act". Since you've pointed out that Simon does have a catalog as a solo artist with members of The Band performing in it, you have nothing to worry about keeping him as an associated act, methinks. Doc talk 03:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Band's legacy, Beggar's Banquet, etc.

An anonymous user is repeatedly misreading The Guardian source and insisting on adding a dubious tag to it. Here's the direct quote:

The spark for Fairport taking this watershed turn was the Band's 1968 album Music from Big Pink, the record that - along with Bob Dylan and the Band's Basement Tapes bootleg - brought about a widespread musical volte-face, in which what remained of psychedelia was replaced by a new rootsiness. Among the rock aristocracy, its influence was evident in the Beatles' ill-fated back-to-basics project Let It Be, the Rolling Stones' purple patch that began with Beggars Banquet, and Eric Clapton's decision to call time on Cream.

The anonymous user takes issue with this statement, claiming that Music from Big Pink could not have influenced Beggar's Banquet because of chronology, i.e., that the Stones were almost done recording the album when Big Pink came out. But, read the statement: it does not say that it influenced the recording of Banquet, but the "purple patch that began with...," etc. This seems clear to me. I would like to hear some other editor's opinions on this matter. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this matter to discussion. I don't follow the logic here. If "the purple patch" began with Beggars Banquet, and Big Pink influenced that "purple patch," doesn't that mean that Big Pink influenced Beggars Banquet? If The Band's alleged influence on The Rolling Stones did not begin until Let it Bleed, as you seem to interpret the writer, then why involve Beggars Banquet at all? Clearly, he is saying that The Stones' celebrated return-to-form marked by Beggars Banquet was influenced by Big Pink.

Even if I were to agree with your interpretation, I still think the notion that The Band influenced The Rolling Stones is more than odd. I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about both The Band and The Stones, but I have never heard about this influence before. If anything, The Stones were influenced by Gram Parsons in their roots-infused material from Let It Bleed onwards - something that is both accepted by critics and acknowledged by The Stones themselves.

Further, I am worried by the nature of the source itself. The article is on Fairport Convention, an English band whose members often acknowledge the influence of The Band on their decision to embrace their own folk music heritage. In this context of The Band's influence on Fairport Convention, the writer then makes a sweeping statement about the other artists that he thinks Big Pink influenced. So, an article on a comparatively minor '60s band is here used to support a rather extraordinary claim of influence between not only The Band and the Rolling Stones, but also between The Band and The Beatles. Doesn't this seem convoluted to anyone else? Isn't it a clear cause for skepticism? It's as if the entry on novelist James Gould Cozzens would claim that he influenced Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner based on a comment from an article about John Masefield. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We can't base the text of articles on what you, I, or anyone else think is odd or what we interpret as 'sweeping statements', 'extraordinary claims' or 'convoluted'. I would think the Guardian would meet the standards for a reliable source, but any questions can be raised at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to make sure. If the source is reliable and its language is accurately reproduced, then the important standard of verifiability has been met. IHeardFromBob (I Heard From You) 14:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I read it as you did, that the 'purple patch' was the object of the influence. My interpretation of why the author specified Beggar's Banquet is that this was the album where the Stones' halted their psychedlic experiment and returned to basics, thus making it part of this period of their history.

However, I'm not sure it matters how one interprets the statement. The standard for inclusion in wikipedia remains Verifiability, not truth. The article's text is accurately reproducing an available, reliable source, so this standard has been met. Furthermore, the text that we've included in the article specifically states that this is journalist John Harris' opinion. If another journalist has taken issue with this opinion, for the reason given or for any other reason, we can include it in the article if it is sourced. However, we should not be performing original research. IHeardFromBob (I Heard From You) 14:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Bob, and I agree with you. However any of us might "read" or "interpret" Harris' opinion, the source is reliable, and he is stating his opinion, nothing more needs to be said. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But what if an opinion from a reliable source clashes with historical fact? Everyone can't be right all of the time, after all. This question might be better suited for a larger forum, though, but I'm just curious. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Bob. But wouldn't your reading of the comment then imply that the influence of Big Pink was responsible for The Stones' "return to basics" following their dabbling in psychedelia, a development marked by Beggars Banquet (disregarding, for the sake of argument, the preceding "Jumping' Jack Flash" single)?

I suppose my main question is the following: How do you deal with something that is historically improbable or factually incorrect in an otherwise reliable source? Can I really counter this with the opinion of another critic? Wouldn't that result in there being undue weight?

My own suggestion? Since there are so many out there who have explicitly acknowledged their debt to The Band (members of Fairport Convention, George Harrison, Eric Clapton, etc), Harris' comment just seems unnecessary, especially since it's problematic. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is the only interpretation. Harris obviously feels that the Stones albums of the late sixties early seventies can be grouped together because of the similarity in style, he obviously believes that the Band was an influence this period. His statement allows but does not require the interpretation that the Band's debut was solely or primarily responsible for this change in direction, and that all albums the Stones during this era released was influenced by the group. I don't know that it would have made more sense for Harris to substitute Let it Bleed for Beggar's Banquet simply because of the release dates. The would likely lead people to believe that he didn't consider the latter to be part of the purple patch. Therefore, I don't know if I can concur that the statement is 'historically probable or factually incorrect' and should be considered for exclusion.

You can certainly counter this with another critics opinion if you feel it improves the article and it can be reliable sourced. You could easily avoid undue weight by summarizing the contrary argument in a sentence or two. Example "Harris' opinion is not shared by critic John Doe who feels (insert argument here)" and a citation.

I don't concur that it is 'unnecessary' to include Harris' statement. The fact that several musicians explicity acknowledge the group's should be included, but that doesn't mean that we should exclude the opinions of third parties if they meet reliabiliy criteria. Arguably, this is particularly important for this particular group, whose influence are a far more important part of its legacy than its sales figures.

It's been an interesting discussion so far and I'm sure we all have more to say. However, my time on the computer will be limited in the next few days, so it may be next week before I revisit. Regards. IHeardFromBob (I Heard From You) 16:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discussion! I do begin to understand your interpretation of Harris. Still, however, I think what Harris is saying is unnecessarily confusing - and shouldn't we aim for clarity? And I do find his mention of Beggars Banquet to be odd, especially since he talks about The Band bringing about "a widespread musical volte-face" through their back-to-the-roots aesthetic, "in which what remained of psychedelia was replaced by a new rootsiness." Since Beggars Banquet was the album where The Stones eschewed their dabbling in psychedelia for precisely a "new rootsiness," I am concerned that Harris is actually implying that the underlying impulse of Big Pink influenced The Stones' new artistic direction marked by Beggars Banquet.

Ok, it's good to hear that it's possible to include a counterview. However, since Harris's opinion appears as a contextual comment in an article that is neither on The Band nor The Rolling Stones, I don't think anyone has taken issue with it. What's more, I've never heard anyone else advance the view that The Band influenced The Stones before, and thus, I don't think there are any counter-opinions to that view for natural reasons. It's simply not a common view, I think, so therefore I don't believe there's been a need to counter it. Harris's comment could be countered, though, by the commonly accepted view that Gram Parsons influenced The Stones' rootsy excursions - but this might actually bring undue weight to the issue.

Finally, I wonder if we could also discuss the sourcing issue. As I mentioned, I find the sourcing method to be quite convoluted. If one wants to posit a connection between two bands, then why consult a source on an unrelated third band? If I want to find support for the idea that The Band influenced Rolling Stones, why would I go to a source about a comparatively minor band like Fairport Convention? Wouldn't it be more logical to consult standard reference works on The Band and The Stones for that ínformation? To me, it comes across a little like grasping at straws. So, for me it's really two matters: the unnecessarily confusing comment by Harris, and the dubious method of sourcing itself. Thanks - I've appreciated the discussion myself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.66.78 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not reinstate the tag for which you have not made a case; consensus here is against you, and your lone (mis)interpretation of the source does not justify the dubious tag. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep reverting the tag. Surely tags are meant to be used, and surely the matter is still under discussion? As for consensus, only two people have responded so far, one of whom is still discussing the issue. Isn't it thus rather premature to talk about consensus? Finally, could you please comment on the dubious manner of sourcing? This is a separate issue from what you allege is my misinterpretation of the content of the source. Thanks. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Case

Please find here summarized the main problems that I have with the inclusion of Harris' opinion.

First, the idea that Music from Big Pink influenced The Rolling Stones' peak period that began with Beggars Banquet is a minority view. It simply cannot be found expressed anywhere else, and certainly not in any of the major literature on The Band or The Rolling Stones.

Second, this is not a significant minority view, since the opinion does not appear in a source on The Band or The Rolling Stones. Rather, it appears as a contextual comment in an article focused entirely on a different band, Fairport Convention.

Third, this manner of sourcing is dubious in itself. Why go to an article about Fairport Convention in order to support the idea that The Band influenced The Rolling Stones? It seems a real roundabout way of going about things; as such, it appears conpicuous. Surely, it would be more natural to consult the sizable body of literature on either The Band or the Rolling Stones in order to find support for a connection between them.

Fourth, Harris' comment is unnecessarily confusing, since it could be read as saying that Music from Big Pink influenced Beggars Banquet, which is chronologically impossible. (The recordings for Beggars Banquet ended in June 1968, while Music from Big Pink was released in July 1968.)

Comments welcome! 130.238.66.78 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not dubious. You cannot simply keep repeating that over and over and expect other people to change their minds. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? What do you mean by "it"? I have outlined several problematic aspects about the inclusion of Harris' opinion - which one are you referring to? I'm not sure if this is your response to my concern about the sourcing above. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the manner of sourcing. Nothing I'm aware of in Wiki guidelines could even remotely be interpreted as prohibiting this for inclusion simply because the article is about another subject. Harris is a writer who often comments on music, and our article's text specifically says that this is his opinion, even though it likely isn't necessary to include this disclaimer. You can ask at the correct noticeboard if you are still not convinced.

The possibly confusing text could be paraphrased to avoid misinterpretation. Perhaps substituting 'albums of the late sixties and early seventies' instead of a specific title would gain consensus.

The alleged minority view is not obvious. No other source provided contradicts this. Again, other author's opinions could be included if sourced. IHeardFromBob (I Heard From You) 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I found this in the reliability guidelines: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Now, this is what we're doing, obviously - carefully weighing the source. And I just don't think that Harris's piece is the best source for this context; a source on The Band or The Rolling Stones would be much better. You're right, Harris is a music writer of some repute, but I would be more comfortable with the inclusion of his view if he had published any major works on The Band or The Rolling Stones.

I like your idea of rephrasing the text to avoid confusion. Since Harris doesn't mention where the Stones' "purple patch" ends, only where it begins (Beggars Banquet), perhaps we could formulate it as "The Rolling Stones' late-'60s resurgence," or something to that effect.

Well, I think it would be difficult to find a source that specifically states that The Band did not influence The Rolling Stones - for the reasons mentioned above. However, I'll try to see if I can find anything that could function as counter-opinion - although the tricky part would be to present it without giving it undue weight. Also, I may try the relevant noticeboard, as you suggested. Thanks again! 130.238.66.78 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct, however with the reliability guidelines stating "reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both", I don't think Harris offering an opinion about a group in a music article would be a context issue. If he gave us recommendations on which household products to purchase there would be a problem. IHeardFromBob (I Heard From You) 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been looking around a little, and I found a claim from the San Francisco Examiner that it was actually The Basement Tapes that influenced The Stones' return to the roots, thanks to Marianne Faithfull. Here is the relevant part:

Marianne got a hold of the Basement Tapes demos in 1967 or '68, and, according to an article in Mojo magazine, played them for her boyfriend, Mick Jagger. This recordings helped influence the direction of the Stones from the dead-end of psychedelia to the "golden age" of the Stones, starting with "Jumping Jack Flash" and Beggar's Banquet, on through to Exile On Main Street.

This makes a lot more sense, since it doesn't clash with chronology. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the Mojo article in question. However, I did find an excerpt from a text by Dylan specialist Clinton Heylin (presumably from a critical work on The Basement Tapes) that mentions an interview with Marianne Faithfull by none other than John Harris, where she mentions the impact made on her by The Basement Tapes (although this source claims that it was Jagger who received the acetate and played it to her, not the other way around).

... Mick Jagger, her partner at the time, got his 14-song acetate in late-1967. "I took it as if the apocalypse was coming," [Faithfull] told John Harris. "I couldn't stop playing it. I was quite scared. I just felt it was like the end of the world coming. That sense of doom. It's not in all the songs, some of them are very funny. But the side that I liked was the more doomy one. There's a lot of stuff about water and – something coming. This Wheel's On Fire, Lo And Behold! – that one was crucial."

And then Heylin adds: "[I]t was Faithfull championing the acetate to Jagger that helped steer The Rolling Stones towards Beggar's Banquet and out of psychedelia." So, this is an interesting development! Perhaos Harris had that Faithfull interview in the back of his mind when he wrote that article on Fairport Convention, and simply mixed up The Basement Tapes with Music from Big Pink. The influence, in any case, seems to come from the joint Dylan/Band Basement Tapes rather than Big Pink. I'll try to think about how to incorporate this in the article. In the meantime, any thoughts? 130.238.66.78 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Genres in infobox.

It seems that we need a discussion about what genres to list in the infobox. I removed folk rock, country rock, roots rock, and blues-rock yesterday because, for one thing, this is a bit much, and, more importantly, all of these fall under the Americana genre. Quoting:

"Americana is an amalgam of roots music fused by the confluence of the shared and varied traditions that make up the American musical ethos; specifically those sounds that are merged from folk, country, rhythm & blues, rock & roll and other external influential styles."

Now, while I actually believe that needs to be rewritten, the gist of it is accurate, and it is certainly relevant to The Band. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

While I was considering the next comment, I noticed yours and would like to add this. Americana is a concoction, like Triple-A, that was cooked up by radio programmers in an attempt to package and sell a format of somewhat related artists and styles. Its origins, circa the late 1980s, were in the South, where Triple-A was considered too Eastern-urban-liberal and where Memphis and Austin were more relevant than Boston, Seattle and New York. But ultimately, it's an artificial label that means little to most readers. More meaningful, then, were the existing, widely understood terms (though roots could go), because they represent the genius of what The Band did: demonstrate the connections between blues, R&B, folk, and country. The term is also an anachronism, unless we want to mention that The Band invented Americana, which essentially they did, but I'm certain they weren't aiming to create an "amalgam." BTW, it's an interesting subject, and yes, it should be addressed. Allreet (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Rhythm and Blues is not included under genres. The Hawks played R&B before The Band moved onto Americana and roots rock. Also, Moondog Matinee is an R&B album, not Americana or roots rock. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from adding it. Do it first, and deal with objections (if any) later. Doc talk 07:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was tried before and was reverted. I would support it to some extent- Hoskyns quotes Helm calling them an R&B band when the started with Dylan (referenced lower in the article). It wasn't a major focus of their output since that point, but you see touches of it. Whether it is important enough to be in the info box is worthy of some discussion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Personnel section

Hi all. I've made a timeline for the band members. See here: User:- tSR - Nth Man/band tl. Feedback is welcome. Although the current table is good, I think a timeline would be better. Does anybody have any thoughts on using this timeline to replace the table? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the vertical black lines? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

They are album releases, including The Basement Tapes, Rock of Ages and The Last Waltz. I've noted this on the graph, thanks. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be a lot better to have both the timeline and the table. The way they present the information is very different from each other, and they'd both be valuable to have. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What advantage would including the table have if the members list and timeline are added to the article? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I should explain why I feel a timeline is needed. A timeline better represents the difference between the original band and the reunited band. It better shows, in a visual way, just how long the original members played together and how they were most productive, as far as releasing albums, during this time. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now also created a timeline that includes members' time with Hawkins. It's on the same page, just scroll down. Would this be better or is it too much info? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the timeline a lot, and I'm all for adding it to the article, but like I said I think the member list table should be left in. Depending on what you want to know about the band membership, each has its advantages over the other. If you want to see at a glance who was in the band at a certain point, or how the list of band members evolved, the table might be the first thing you'd want to look at. In general I would say that how information is presented can be as important as the information itself. That's why having both would be good. P.S. Take a look at the Grateful Dead article for an example of a band article that has both. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. What about the other version of the timeline? Should the members' time with Hawkins be included, or is that too much? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I could go either way, but my preference would be to include Hawkins years. And also, you said that the vertical lines indicate album releases. Is there a reasonably straightforward way to show which lines are which albums? (Number the vertical lines, and then have a key just below the timeline, perhaps?) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've added the timeline to the article. I don't think indicating which albums are which could be done in a way that would look clean and concise. I'd like to keep it as uncluttered as possible. The Discography section of the article is now just above the Personnel section, so it's easy enough to cross-reference it. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reorganised the timeline a bit. Better or worse? Suggestions? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Americana

I'm surprised there's no mention of The Band's influence on what later became the Americana genre. Between the Byrds, Buffalo Springfield and The Band, you pretty well have the origin of Americana music. Not country, not bluegrass, not rhythm and blues, but off them all. MarkinBoston (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed but not at all surprised. The fans of this group are often its worst enemy. Simply look at some of the discussion on this page, or the recent edits in which a simple phrase like 'acclaimed and influential' was eliminated as puffery. Ironic and a bit disturbing considering what gets let into articles for other groups.. 66.252.163.94 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the article should speak for itself; at the end of the lead, several of The Band's major accolades are mentioned, and there is a whole "influence" section near the end of the page. After all, we don't want this to look like Robbie Robertson wrote it. The Wookieepedian (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me say that my comments were not intended for one person in particular, but I'll stand by them. Now regarding specific text itself, I don't see how correctly mentioning that the group was acclaimed and influential and that all five members were notable musicians, among other text, is any cause for concern. As for whether or not we want this article to look like Robertson wrote it, considering how much salesmanship goes into gaining featured article status, I'm not sure it's such a horrible idea, but I'll defer to consensus. I'm pretty sure how that will work out, considering the observation about being our own worst enemies. 66.252.163.94 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Puffery?

I do not feel that it is puffery to say that the Band were "acclaimed" or "influential". They were critically acclaimed, which is shown and referenced in the article, and they were influential, which is also explained and referenced in the article. Also, the original members of the band were indeed notable. "Notable" is not even a peacock term. If they weren't notable, they wouldn't have their own articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only covers notable individuals. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I say add them back in. The Wookieepedian (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge: List of The Band members

I propose merging List of The Band members into this article. The other article consists of a timeline graph and a table of lineups. Obviously the topic is a good fit for this article, and it wouldn't make this article that much longer than it is already. Why make readers go to the other article, if they even notice that it's linked to from here, which isn't all that obvious? Let's merge 'em. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I moved everything to that article because I thought it was SOP for music groups, but yeah I agree it would be better here. Only I think that list someone added a few days ago is repetitive and should be removed. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree. I think the separate article is not really needed, but it does contain a good graph which should be included on this main page. Other than that I see no reason why it merit's a separate article Pafcool2 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the other article's been merged into this one, so that's good. How about if we change the other article to be a redirect to this article, to complete the merge? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, I'll go do that. The Wookieepedian (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • With regards to the additional list that was added to this page a few months back that I've seen mentioned in this discussion, I added that list purely for reference to solve the problem with the member ordering in the infobox, which needed clarifying back when the list was added. As the issue no longer exists the list doesn't need to anyway, especially not for a band with as few members as this one. Just for I'd justify its inclusion in the first place in case anyone was wondering. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations needed for Garth's joining

There are citations needed tags on Garth's joining the group. This information was partially covered in the film "The Last Waltz" by Robbie Robertson in one of the interview sections that was included between musical numbers. As I am new here, do the statements made by Robertson in the film qualify as an acceptable reference on this subject? Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the citation needed tag?

As I am trying to learn how things work here I was wondering about this situation. Why is there a citation needed tag for this quote directly from the print source mentioned? "Levon Helm regards this album highly in his book, This Wheel's on Fire: "It was the best album we had done since The Band."[citation needed]" Isn't the internal mention of the source enough? Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no source for the statement... Where does this info come from? This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. -- Moxy (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will check out the links you shared. I made the assumption that since the book where the quote was from is mentioned within the sentence with the quote, the quotes source was, in a sense, cited. Is it due to the fact that the book, "This Wheel's On Fire" does not have the accompanying publishing info that makes it unacceptable? That would make sense anyway. Thanks again for your response.THX1136 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A question: capitalization of "the"

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I share this question. It seems like almost all of the references to The Band capitalize "the," although I did find erratic capitalization on the Bob Dylan page. It's a surprise that it hasn't been addressed. 67.142.161.19 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Melissa Jenks

Currently this is still an inconsistency plaguing the article. I think it should be "The Band" because "the" is included as part of the band's name always—it isn't also called "Band"—so it's part of the proper noun. Most mentions already have the capitalization too. I guarantee the official name has a capitalized "T". I'd be willing to go through the whole article myself and fix every "t" if I have to; this seems pretty obvious to me. I.e. that "the Beatles" policy is stupid and shouldn't have had that outcome in the talk page. Mechanic1c (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mid-sentence, it should consistently be "the Band", with a lowercase "t". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article), and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess there's no debating that. I'll fix them all now. Mechanic1c (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Members' other endeavors

"In 1984, Danko joined members of the Byrds, the Flying Burrito Brothers, and others in the huge touring company that made up "The Byrds Twenty-Year Celebration". Several members of the band performed solo songs to start the show including Danko who performed "Mystery Train". " Does "the band" here refer to "The Byrds Twenty-Year Celebration" (for which lower case is appropriate) or to "The Band" (which should be capitalized)? If the former, consider rephrasing to avoid the confusion. --Khajidha (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly not "members of The Band". Helm, Hudson and Manuel were not involved, let alone Robertson. Hartenhof (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Members of that touring band (sometimes called the New Byrds), were Gene Clark, Rick Roberts, Michael Clark, Rick Danko, Blondie Chaplin and John York. Hartenhof (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard Manuel appears to have been involved as well, so there were two members of The Band in that group. Hartenhof (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Band. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150715110044/http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Awards/Lifetime_Awards/ to http://www2.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Awards/Lifetime_Awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dylan in timeline chart

Bob Dylan obviously played an important role in the Band's history, but I do not believe he should be listed as a member of the group. No other rock history that I am familiar with has ever referred to Dylan as a member of the Band. PJtP (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neil Young

Neil Young is an associated act ? source. It doesn't seem so according to the template's documentation. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Weight Band

Perhaps in the "Legacy" section or related artists or somewhere, I think that it should be noted that there is a continuation of the Band in the form of "The Weight Band" which features Jim Weider and Randy Ciarlante. Early on, Garth Hudson performed with them as "Songs of The Band" and other members include Marty Grebb, who performed and wrote with later period Band and was even a contender for Richard Manuel's seat after his passing. - Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.68.95 (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Typo

Typo in this phrase of the third paragraph; "..., but the remaining three members continued to tour and record albums with a revolving door of musicians filling Manuel's and Robertson's respective roles,..." The "record albums" is out of place. Perhaps "recorded albums"? ThomasSchroeder (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They continued to record, "to record" is an infinitive. Nothing wrong with this sentence. Hartenhof (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have no idea what I was thinking previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasSchroeder (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Band. 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/20120121033629/http://watch.bravo.ca/yonge-street/yonge-street-toronto-rock--roll-stories/yonge-street---toronto-rock--roll-stories-part-2/ to http://watch.bravo.ca/yonge-street/yonge-street-toronto-rock--roll-stories/yonge-street---toronto-rock--roll-stories-part-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Band. 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/20120315164633/http://theband.hiof.no/articles/levons_next_waltz_rs.html to http://theband.hiof.no/articles/levons_next_waltz_rs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706133648/http://www.cloakanddaggermedia.com/features/craig_finn/features2.html to http://www.cloakanddaggermedia.com/features/craig_finn/features2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405231400/http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/music/Grace+Potter+Ghostbusters+rock+roll+wearing+pants/7915344/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/music/Grace+Potter+Ghostbusters+rock+roll+wearing+pants/7915344/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Band. 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/20111202075719/http://levonhelm.com/biography.htm to http://levonhelm.com/biography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140204154829/http://thefutureheart.com/2013/11/16/last-waltz/ to http://thefutureheart.com/2013/11/16/last-waltz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Discography

Should "Rock of Ages" not be included in the discography on this page? Although it was a live recording it was one of the 8 in the original contract with Capitol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.178 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Saw no reason why not -added it... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

american

what qualifies this band as American? there doesn't seem to be any appropriate reference in the article. they seem about as American as the Beetles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.200.126 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Levon Helm --Khajidha (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to improve the lede

This [8] was twice reverted, and earned an edit warring template. I've also opened a thread at ANI. It's generously supported by the body of the article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the group, saw this at ANI, and have no dog in this fight. How can I help? Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Any way you see fit, Mackensen. I've written a lot of articles and ledes, and this intro is bad, way beneath what we'd expect for a major subject and a B level piece. I tried to clean it up in a very small way, and end the first paragraph with a decent summation, one that describes the group's importance, without hyperbole, and is verified by numerous citations. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)