Talk:NRBQ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox[edit]

I added an infobox for nrbq, but I do not know how to upload wikipedia images, so I hope someone else could do that... NJMD 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons[edit]

does anyone think that this article should mention that nrbq often do songs for the simpsons?

Do they? I know they appeared in an episode as themselves, but I thought Alf Clausen did all the music on The Simpsons. I think there was a heavily q-influenced episode of Sponge Bob, though. 24.195.17.40 02:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just wanna say that whoever did the recent touchup on the Q article did a real good job.

In addition, they've served as the unofficial "house band" for The Simpsons in recent years, contributing several songs and even appearing in animated form during one episode.

This makes it sound as if they wrote songs specifically for The Simpsons. Have they ever? The only songs of theirs I remember appearing on The Simpsons (Me and the Boys, Want You To Feel Good Too, I Like That Girl) were written and released well before appearing on the show. The text should make that clear. Skyraider 22:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Mayonnaise and Marmalade? Betomg

The information about the other names NRBQ performed under comes from an interview Terry amd Joey did on 10/29/83 with a DJ from WDST FM. Skyraider 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Anderson link brings you to the entry for the OTHER Al Anderson, the one who was in the Wailers. Different guy.


I know it looks like the Adams/Ferguson quartet has 2 US performances from the NRBQ website, but here's the chronology: 1) 7/14 WAMC 2) 7/15 8:00 Turning Point 3) 7/15 10:30 Turning Point 4) 7/16 3:00 Turning Point

4 performances. Skyraider 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 NRBQ performance?[edit]

The boys are rumored to have performed together at a private party for Mike Scully's 50th birthday. There was discussion of this on the NRBQ mailing list, but I haven't yet been able to verify this with an independent source. Anyone else have any leads?--Skyraider 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cluelessness ?[edit]

At minimum, it would seem this sentennce should have an attribution:

> The situation is largely due to the cluelessness of the pop music scene

In my view, the statement is subjective, possibly offensive, and should be deleted.

cleanup is clearly in order, but tagging the entire article for tone and neutrality is overkill, IMO.--Skyraider 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've given it a going over and I think the more POV statements have been cleaned up. I'm removing the tags. --Skyraider 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err I don't think so; just check out the intro sentence: "NRBQ is a highly-acclaimed rock band, purveyors of a unique brand of "omnipop"". First of all what is "omnipop"? There is no article about it so I'm inclined to think that it is a term that has been coined by the writers of this article (see WP:NEO about that). Second, "highly-acclaimed" might be true or not, but needs a citation at least. As to "a unique brand", that is all-out POV.
What about this: "The band's music, a rollicking blend of everything from stomping rockabilly to...". "Rollicking"? "Stomping"? That is not the kind of tone that is expected from an encyclopedia.
And that's not all; what about this: "rampant admiration from their peers and fans"; "the band's eccentric sense of humor, while beloved by fans, hasn't helped their commercial potential" (original research and POV); "legendary live shows"...
A lot of this article reads like it was written by a fan, and I can't help but wonder if it wasn't copied from their official website or a fansite. So I'm sorry, but I've got to put the POV tag back. Thanks for improving it somewhat, though. IronChris | (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your objections one at a time:
1) "Omnipop". WP:NEO says "Created terms that add common prefixes or suffixes (such as non- or -ism) to existing words can add clarity, and this may be acceptable in some cases". As "Omni-" and "Pop" are pre-existing and pretty clear in meaning, there would be no issue here even if the authors of this article coined the term. As it happens, they did not. "After 25 years of recording delightfully mindless, perpetually adolescent, wonderfully madcap, romantically stirring, unpredictably bizarre, brilliantly fashioned and deliciously delivered omni-pop tunes, is NRBQ sneaking a bit of message onto its newest studio album, Message for the Mess Age?" Pulse Magazine, March 1994, "NRBQ" p. 50 by Dan Oullette
2) "Highly-acclaimed" The Oulette article cited above goes on to call their music "peerless", but here's what others have to say:
http://www.stereophile.com/recordingofthemonth/1104rotm/
"Stereophile" names NRBQ's "Dummy" recording of the month, November 2004
"There has rarely--make that *never*--been a four-piece combo that could compose and perform such a wide variety of material with such an identifiable style as NRBQ (the New Rhythm and Blues Quartet)." Guitar Player magazine July '89 p. 69 by Webb wilder
"Yes, NRBQ are definitely *happening* today, as much as they ever were, and if they aren't the best band in America, at least they're one natural resource that hasn't had the good sense to dry up and blow away. For that, and for their eight great albums, with many more to come, give thanks. They have the magic that John Sebastian once wrote a song about." Creem magazine March '82 p. 60 by Dave DiMartino
". . . they've played hundreds of clubs, thousands of tunes, and proved themselves, for more than a few critics and fans, the finest American band of the last two decades." Musician magazine January '90 0. 46 by Mark Rowland
"More than just NRBQ's best record, but one of the great records of the '70s (maybe ever!). . ." John Dougan allmusic.com review of "NRBQ at Yankee Stadium"
". . . one of America's great unsung national treasures." Goldmine magazine May 18, 1990 vol. 16 No. 10 p. 12 by Charles P. Lamey
". . . quite possibly the finest rock and roll band in America and, if you've never heard them, you owe it to yourself to check them out." Discoveries magazine May 1998 Issue 120 p. 28 by Robin Platts
"Best band in the universe" --Bonnie Raitt
"They're the best band in America..." -Elvis Costello
"If you don't like NRBQ, I don't want to be around you..." -Penn Jillette
I haven't bothered to visit the library yet for additional material, but I will if I have to.
3) "Unique brand" "brand" is simply a synonym for "type" or "style" in this context, and is a neutral term. "Unique" has neither positive nor negative connotations, and according to the OED simply means "without another of the same kind known to exist". If you know of another band that in addition to their own material has performed music by Thelonious Monk, the Beach Boys, Johnny Cash, Devo, the Beatles, Duke Ellington, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Laid Back, Link Wray, Eddie Cochran, Rosemary Clooney, the Lovin' Spoonful, Blood, Sweat, and Tears, Tom Jones, Jerry Lee Lewis, Sun Ra, Little Richard, J. S. Bach, Big Joe Turner, Lonnie Mack, the Rockin' Rebels, Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, the Davis Sisters, Dave Brubeck, Bruce Channel, and the Everly Brothers (to name a few off the top of my head), I'd certainly like to hear about them. If you object to "Unique", I'd say the burden is on you to identify that other band. Here's what the Penguin Encyclopedia of Popular Music had to say about NRBQ: "Eclectic American band playing nearly evreything" In any event, "unique brand" is not POV.
4) Rollicking/stomping--Here we have a difference of opinion about appropriate tone. Someone who knows nothing about NRBQ and reads this article gains a much better sense of their music if those adjectives are present than if they aren't, or if they're watered down. Nobody else has previously objected to the language, and other articles about popular music, even Featured Articles, are not neutralized to the point of bloodlessness, as you seem to want to do here.
Examples from Featured Articles:
"The instrumentation was funkier, the beat was hard-driving" The Temptations
"Megadeth is known for their distinctive guitar style, often involving complex, intricate musical passages" Megadeth
"The sessions revealed the depth of Cobain's songwriting, which had often been buried under the sonic fury of the band's sound." Nirvana (band)
"The sound became polished and collaborative, with the philosophic lyrics and distinctive bass lines of Waters combining with the unique blues guitar style of Gilmour and Wright's light keyboard melodies." Pink Floyd (note use of the word "unique".)
5) "rampant admiration from their peers and fans" Perfectly accurate. This shouldn't be a problem at all, since, in context, the article text is communicating the fact that a devoted fanbase has not translated to mainstream commercial success. Is any of that in dispute? Re-read the above quoted examples from the music press.
6) "the band's eccentric sense of humor, while beloved by fans, hasn't helped their commercial potential" Far from being OR, this is a succinct summary of a notion expressed repeatedly in coverage of the band. I can produce several separate citations to replace this text, but the flow of text will suffer enormously. POV claim is baseless.
7) "legendary live shows" Re-read the above quoted examples from the music press.
8) "A lot of this article reads like it was written by a fan" Wikipedia doesn't actually have a policy against that. It's generally helpful when articles are written by people who know something about a subject. Fans, by definition, possess knowledge of a subject.
9) "I can't help but wonder if it wasn't copied from their official website or a fansite" Wonder no longer--it wasn't. Had you bothered to look into it before accusing your fellow editors of plagiarism, you would have discovered that for yourself. WP:AGF--Skyraider 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen pages on Wiki with POV tags that I didn't understand. I really don't understand why this one doesn't have a POV tag AND a citation tag.
"It is a perfectly crafted song which had every element one would deem necessary for a hit single except the actual chart position of a hit. For those who have not yet heard this song, it is well worth seeking out." How can there be any argument that this statement (a fair example of the entire entry) is encyclopedia material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.61.150 (talk • contribs).
I agree the above text is unarguably POV. I've added some information and (hopefully) addressed your legitimate POV concerns. Cheers! Skyraider 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced?[edit]

I asked for specifics about what needs to be cited here, and a week later, I haven't heard a peep. I don't object to the tag, but without a specific list of what needs to be cited in order to satisfy the tagger, it's meaningless. I've removed the tag for now. Skyraider 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite after the fact, but if you're still around Skyraider, some of the info you pointed to in the "Clueless" topic could have been used as reference citations to support information in the article. I've added citations (and perhaps went overboard on some) to better support the info presented in the article. THX1136 (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from Tapdancin' Bats[edit]

I am proposing the merger because I feel that Tapdancin' Bats does not deserve its own article based on WP:MUSIC: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.--Samuel Tan 03:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just decided to remove the merger proposal from tapdancin' bats, after considering that the album passes WP:MUSIC because of band's notability. The album's article could be fleshed out further, though. :) -Samuel Tan 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanzine Page[edit]

This whole page reads like a marketing release from the band.

"NRBQ's devoted following has been stoked by years of legendary live shows."

Which legends do these shows appear in?

"The band never works with a setlist, so fans never know what songs they may hear."

How does the BAND not having a setlist relate to what the FANS know about the show?

GeneCallahan (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bearsville dispute with Albert Grossman/ litigation?[edit]

Why is there no mention whatsoever in this article about the disagreement/ litigation with Bearsville Records in the early 1980s that kept the band from recording any new material for about four years? From what I have read it involved Grossman or Warners wanting them to remove a song from "Grooves in Orbit" that had been written by a friend of theirs who was dying and they had already told him they were recording the song, so they wouldn't remove it. Grossman got mad and somehow this kept them from recording for four years...or in other accounts it has to do with Bearsville going out of business. Anyway, this was apparently a big enough hassle for the band that it has a large mention in a Rolling Stone article from 1990 that's featured on the RS Coverwall right now ("NRBQ RSVP") and implies that it was very discouraging for the band and without a couple of their friends in the business who supported them, they might have broken up...so it's odd not to see anything about it at all here. TheBlinkster (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NRBQ had a great life as the Heirs Apparent but nothing ever happened[edit]

There are many puzzled comments above about the extravagant praise for NRBQ. Since 1969 when Richard "The Gap" Lorber heralded them in either Fusion or Rolling Stone, they were spoken of as the Next Big Thing. Somehow NRBQ managed to be the Next Big Thing for decades, without ever creating a record anybody can remember. Or bought. Their fame now rests on having sometimes been studio musicians for the Simpsons? My god, after all those decades of waiting for them to be the next Grateful Dead, if not the next Bob Dylan? There are words for the One Hit Wonders, for the Flash in the Pan, but no words for a band that was always just about to do something, and were admired for that, respected for that, for 40 years, until they passed away in old age, may they rest in peace. "Failure to Launch?" They had a great life. No need to feel sorry for them. They were always treated as the Heirs Apparent no matter what they didn't do. I don't get it. Profhum (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neither do I.66.169.94.145 (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Way after the fact, but one word I can think of is "tenacious". THX1136 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NRBQ. 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:

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) 14:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NRBQ. 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:

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) 01:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Formation[edit]

I'm going through the article to add supporting cites. I came across a "disagreement" on formation dates. AllMusic and the Boston Globe say 1967, lohud.com has 1966 as the date. Since I have 2 that agree I changed it to 67 with added cites. If I come up with "overwhelming evidence" that 66 is the correct year I will change it back. If another editor can supply more evidence to the contrary, please feel free to do the change. Thanks THX1136 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have two sources each for the differing dates - 1966 & 1967. I decided to state in the article the differing dates with the cites I currently have for each. THX1136 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Info[edit]

I removed the following: "In May 1968, Terry and Steve re-formed NRBQ in Miami." as there is no source cited for it. It may be reincorporated into the article when a source is found. All the sources I have make no mention of the group being in Miami in 68 in a "formative" stage. The date I'm seeing at this point is 1967 for the date that Adams reformed the NRBQ (due to a meeting with Sun Ra in 1967 to quote Adams) after he disbanded the group for a short time. Of the sources I currently have it is unclear of the precise dates of the group going to FL and then returning to the NJ/NY area. FYI, among my sources are Rolling Stone, the Boston Globe, Goldmine and AllMusic. THX1136 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed the following as not sourced: "The group relocated to the northeast in late November 1968, and played The Choo Choo Club in Lodi, New Jersey and Steve Paul's Scene in New York City." This may be added back into the article when a source supporting it is found. THX1136 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following as not sourced: "In 1970 the group played at Terrace in the Park (atop the 1964 NY World's Fair site) for the Chaminade High School prom, hired by prom chair Paul Riordan." This should be added back into the article when a reliable source is found to support the info. THX1136 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect grammar[edit]

NRBQ are..a corporation is not a person Anonymous8206 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous8206: You're talking about the lead sentence saying, "NRBQ is an American rock band...", right? In American English, people talk about a band as an entity and say "is". In British English they talk about a band as the members and say "are". An article about an American band should use American English, per WP:ENGVAR. This question comes up pretty often for articles about bands, by the way. If you look at articles about American bands and articles about British bands, you'll see that this practice is pretty widely followed. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The LEAD in this article is grammatically incorrect..just becuase other articles are as well doesn`t change that Anonymous8206 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NRBQ&oldid=1208357938"