Talk:Electric Light Orchestra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Date inconsistencies

In reading this article I have noticed several inconsistencies between the dates in the text and the dates in the list of band members. The text states that the original ELO broke up after the release of a 1986 album, and the band member list confirms that this indeed took place in 1986, as the 3 remaining members (Lynne, Groucutt and Bevan) are listed as having departed in that year. OK so far. The next event in the text is Bevan forming "ELO Part II" in 1990. However, the band member list has Bevan, Groucutt, McDowell and Kaminski "rejoining" in 1988, and Eric Troyer (the only "original" member of Part II who was not in Part I) also joining in 1988. But, how could they have joined/rejoined a band in 1988 if it was not formed (or re-formed depending on how you look at it) until 1990, two years later? Unfortunately, that is not all. The text states that Lynne "reformed" ELO in 2001, but the band member list says he rejoined in 2000. The text also says that once ELO had been reformed (which was in 2001), "Richard Tandy rejoined the band a short time afterwards..." So one would expect to find in the band member list that Tandy rejoined in 2001 or 2002, or maybe even 2000 to match Lynne's rejoining (but not reforming!) date. One does not: The band member list says Tandy rejoined in 1999! He could not have, since ELO had not yet been reformed and Part II had gone out of business.

It also appears that although the text states that the former Part II members (other than Bevan) "have reformed under the name The Orchestra," this is not reflected in the band member list. Otherwise, there would be yet another rejoining date for Groucutt, Troyer and others, after 1999. I realize that this may be intentional rather than an error, since "The Orchestra" is now getting pretty far afield from ELO, mainly sharing a bass player/backing vocalist and a couple of part-time string players. However, it does add to the overall sense of confusion a bit.

I do not have any information that would resolve these conflicts, incongruities or whatever they are. My suggestion for anyone that does have such information is that once the correct dates have been figured out, to either list the members of ELO and Part II separately to reduce confusion, or if it is to remain one list, then next to the "rejoining" dates (after 1986), put in parentheses which band (ELO or Part II) the person was joining/"rejoining." Zeutron 03:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Band Member Inconsistencies

Is it accurate to say Tandy "rejoined" the band at all? The liner for Zoom mentions him as a "special guest" on "Alright" and to imply he rejoined from that is to say Ringo Starr (guest on "Moment in Paradise" and "Easy Money") and George Harrison (guest on "A Long Time Gone") joined the band.

From all indications, all that separates Zoom from being a solo effort by Lynne is the fact that Lynne credited the album to the band, rather than himself. Afrayer 01:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Marc Mann is given as joining the band in 2000, but is listed as performing on only one cut, "Moment in Paradise," on Zoom. Suzie Katayama is listed as playing cello on three cuts ("Just For Love," "Stranger on a Quiet Street," and "All She Wanted"), yet she isn't listed as a band member.

I'm interested in consistency. At what point is a performer considered part of the band, and not simply a guest? You can't say touring, since there are many cases where guests toured with bands (Michelle Branch touring with Carlos Santana coming to mind). Unless someone has access to the contracts, I propose you go by credit placement on the liners, and on Zoom that means Lynne is the only actual band member.Afrayer 01:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is Dave Morgan listed? I didn't see his name in this section.

"ELO" should not redirect here

"ELO" can refer to a number of things besides Electric Light Orchestra, as demonstrated by the previous disambig page that "ELO" was [1]. However, AmbigDexter claims that these are "false entries", which I have disagreed with on the user's talk page. I am contemplating weather to create ELO (disambiguation) or just revert ELO back to the disambig page. -albrozdude 00:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Electric Light Orchestra Part II

I suggest that information on this spin off band be given its own page. At the moment it shares credit with the main ELO page. - The Equaliser 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorted. - The Equaliser

Do Ya

In the article, the paragraph relating to A New World Record refers to "Do Ya" as a re-release of a song by The Move. Is the song merely the same recording from one of The Move's albums spliced into New World Record, or is it a new recording? In the latter case, it should be listed as a cover or remake. Kouban 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This matter has now been resolved The Equaliser 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ELO re-recorded the song. Jeff Lynne originally wrote the song while he was a member of the Move (per-ELO). When the Move became ELO, the song "Do Ya" was melded into the hit single "10538 Overture" as a short medley. Eventually Lynne ELOized the song on the hit album, A New World Record.

The Orchestra during their 2002 tour of the US, performed the Move's version.

The discography section is effectively an image gallery using the fair-use images as decoration and not critical commentary of the artwork itself. As such, they should probably be removed as displaying them in this fashion is not fair-use. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. How is it any different from the identical section on the Beatles article? Besides, Wikipedia:Fair use#Images says cover art is just fine. -- Scjessey 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use#Images explicitly states that this is fair-use "for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." The latter is the specific fashion in which the album images are being used. I spoke with another user on my talkpage some time back about this same thing; I brought up the topic on the WP:FU talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_9#policy_quandry.3F and was supported (albeit not heartily) in that using album covers for decoration or identification w/o the cover art being the subject of the commentary does not fall under fair-use. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Many other major bands have a similar layout without anyone moaning at them where is the harm ,I have worked extensively on this rock bands profile for months now cleaning it up and presenting it and I am very proud of the way it looks now ,leave the page alone and let the light shine on! -- The Equaliser 09:51 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Inspirations, Followers, Contemporaries, Similar Artists

Looks like it was ripped from All Music Guide. I think this is a copyright infringement. Mrbluesky 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, It is now gone The Equaliser 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think LEO and all the Japanese art and samples should be either moved to one place rather than being weaved in with general ELO information.This would make things clearer because although samples,Japanese art cartoons and LEO and related tribute bands are relative to ELO,they should all be merged into a tributes or related section away from the main body of ELO history.

Also the Randy Newman piece is too long and would fit in better in Randy's own wiki section.

Also the US bias seems to dominate the whole piece and maybe it should not be assumed that Fire On High,is played throughout the world on Classic Rock Radio. Same thing goes for US film and tv trailers,seems unimportant to me as someone who lives in the UK.

I think it is looking better each day but still needs a tighter focus on ELO,with less related info overflow in its own section as I suggested earlier. Any thoughts on this? {Eloidle 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Eloidle}

ELO Videos and Links

Hold on Tight http://www.mediamob.co.kr/tearsfor/Post/PostView.aspx?PKId=50754

http://music.aol.com/artist/main.adp?artistid=4177

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&n=2&videoid=629173924&&Mytoken=159E80C4-BE2B-F18E-7D37146F5537044842748766

David Lee Roth, Steve Vai and Ben Beven http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjvs7mtf6iE&search=yankee%20rose

Should all the links to all the official and unofficial sites be removed,it does state in the terms about links to sites personal or otherwise are not acceptable.{Eloidle 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Eloidle}

Song

My mother is curious which ELO song has no lyrics. Could ya help a boy? -Yancyfry 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Fire On High from the album Face the Music contains nothing but a very heavily distorted voice in reverse; and The Whale from Out of the Blue is entirely instrumental. Hope that helps! Hassocks5489 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (ELO Fan)

• • First Movement (Jumping Biz)
  • Mahattan Rumble
  • Battle of Marston Moor (Roy Wood does 'Cromwell speech' at the begining of track)
  • Daybreaker
  • In the Hall Of the Mountain King
  • Eldorado finale
  • Fire on High

(The choir does sing "Fire On High")

• • The Whale
  • Believe Me Now (This track does have lyrics,"Believe Me Now"
  • Another Heart Breaks

("Another Heart Breaks"is spoken by Jeff Lynne)

• • After All
  • Grieg's Piano Concerto in A Minor
  • The Quick And the Daft

Hope this helps .

Maybe another listen,may help further. {Eloidle 14:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Eloidle)

All Over the world

^{Superscript text}

The album was realesed in the USA I got the album!

-GD1223 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GD1223 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

150 million + records sold

In all fairness, it HAS been estimated & speculated that ELO has sold in excess of 150 million records among fans and employees of the RIAA.

http://eloforever.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1187086172

How is stating that estimation and speculation among fans regarding ELO's sales totals has taken place an opinion? Calling ELO's material Beatlesque is opinion, and diverts attention away from ELO and towards The Beatles.

No offense was intended in this post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChurchMale (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop Masters/Pop Domination

What purpose does these sections serve? This is an encyclopedia article, not a shrine to a band's success. Very weaselly choice of acts, some of which weren't singles acts at all. Should both be taken down.

Vytal (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit POV to me. Marlith ^T/C 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

What's the big deal guys? Can't a fan compare his/her favorite band's success to that of other bands who were active in the same period? Success based on numbers?

I'm trying to make ELO look better than they have on these pages... within the rules. Read what I claimed: ELO had more UK & US Top 40 Hits than any other band in the world from 1972 to 1986. The comparisons made aren't "weaselly" like Vytal stated.

After viewing The Beatles, Queens' and various other bands' home Wiki pages & discographies... I'd say the notion of removing information on ELO that had never before been on Wikipedia is kind of a hypocritical one, since many other bands' pages look like shrines to their respective successes...

Thanks.

-TheChurchMale —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChurchMale (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ELO Band 1979.jpg

Image:ELO Band 1979.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

I read through the article's sources, and found nothing as to the group having 46 top forty hit singles, rather 26. However, I wouldn't want to look stupid, so I'd rather not edit it myself.

Winnemuccan (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Winnemuccan 3/8/08

There's a chart in an older version that makes this more clear (see the 2007-11-20 18:11 revision of this article). The claim seems to be correct based on my spot check, but it's kinda dubious. The time period (1972-1986) is of course the sweet spot for ELO, and other groups come out in front merely by tweaking the years (e.g. 1972-1989 puts Queen on top). There's at least one close contender that wasn't considered (Kool and the Gang), which makes me believe that there might be another band out there in the running even for the selected period. And of course, there are solo artists that cream ELO even inside this window (e.g. Elton John, Olivia Newton-John, Barry Manilow, Neil Diamond) -- RobLa (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I guess ONJ, Manilow, and Diamond, don't belong on the list, but Elton John makes up for all of them. -- RobLa (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, David Bowie also makes the list (41 UK plus 11 US). There, I'll let it go now :) -- RobLa (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:On The Third Day US cover.jpg

The image Image:On The Third Day US cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I have removed the trivia from this article for the following reasons;

• Trivia sections are discouraged and I cannot see a obvious place where this information should be included elsewhere. It's unimportant trivia.
• "Lead singer of the band Brave Saint Saturn credits the E.L.O album Time as the start of the astro-rock music genre which brave saint saturn currently plays." - uncited opinion of singer for minor rock band. What makes his thoughts important? Why does the reader of this article care what Brave Saint Saturn plays? What proof do we have he said this anyway?
• "The song "Twilight" was used as the opening animation for Daicon IV Japanese Convention as well as the opening song for the Japanese Drama Densha Otoko" - ELO's music has been used in thousands of occasions as backing for thousands of things. Do we list them all? Why are these instances important?
• "In the Doctor Who episode "Love & Monsters," protagonist Elton Pope is an ELO fan. Version of the songs "Don't Bring Me Down," "Mr. Blue Sky," "Turn to Stone" and "Brand New Key" are featured." - As above. What's significant about this?

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We can add to the above list the uncited trivia about Rock 'n' Roll Is King being used by a wrestling team. ELO's music is used in many places. We can't list them all, and what makes this significant? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

-- So because you can't list them all, we shouldn't list ANY of them. Yes, that's rational. Never mind that the "Doctor Who" episode has been seen by millions of viewers worldwide. If it doesn't fit with Escape_Orbit's worldview, it does not bear mentioning.

No, we should only list those that are significant to the article subject. Nothing here indicates why this particular use of ELO's music matters to ELO, or anyone interested in reading about ELO. It is perhaps significant to the Dr Who article, but is just one of thousands of other uses of ELO music as far as this article is concerned.

If you think it is significant to the subject of ELO, please cite from reputable sources an explanation why and it can be included in a relevant section that isn't trivia. Otherwise the end impression is one of "So what? Why are you telling me this? Why is this here?" Trivia cruft like this should be removed, otherwise it simply attracts more trivia, as evidenced above. Before you know it you have 50 uncited "examples" of ELO's music being used, none of which tell you anything of any importance, other than a general indication that their music is popular; something that the rest of the article already adequately establishes in a far more factual manner. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

-- OK, great god of ELO-ness ... whatever you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.96.4 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of the Blue tour technical advances

The tour for Out of the Blue featured two technological breakthroughs in touring shows.

It was the first time the sound system was suspended at each venue from the ceilings of the auditorium. It's common now via rigging points built into the speakers cabinets, but then speakers were loaded into specially constructed cages.

Additionally, the "lid" of the space-ship/stage being lifted was the first time electric winches were synchronized to lift stage machinery. If they had not been in perfect synchronization while lifting, the trusses contained within the lid would have warped and crashed onto the stage.

This was documented in stage and audio magazines at the time. Might be worth checking out. K8 fan (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hall Of Fame

In relation to the entry on ELO not being inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; "Also, as of 2009 they haven't been nominated for a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction, ELO has been eligible since 1996."

You cannot add a 'fact' about what has not happened without also presenting the opinion that either it notably should happen, or that it is usual to expect it to happen. Otherwise there would be no point to mentioning it. Similarly, anyone could add other 'true' facts that are every bit as valid as this. For instance;

• To date Jeff Lynne has not been knighted. He has been eligible since turning 18.
• Electric Light Orchestra have not had statues of them erected in Birmingham. They came from there.
• So far the national anthem of the United Kingdom has not been changed to Mr. Blue Sky. People know the words to Mr. Blue Sky.
• Jeff Lynne is not given his shopping for free at his local supermarket. Supermarkets often play his hits on their public address system.
• Jeff Lynne has not ever dropped around my place for a cup of tea. He has been welcome since 1978.

All the above are undeniably 'fact', but they are also uncited and suggest that the writer of the 'fact' thinks these situations should be reversed. That is an opinion.

Unless a reliable source lamenting ELO's lack of an induction can be cited, this 'fact' doesn't belong here. And even if one could, as an opinion it doesn't really belong in the lead, which should concentrate on actual facts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Those 5 examples are completely ridiculous facts by themselves let alone when compared to this Rock and Roll Hall of Fame one, although I do see your point about it not belonging in the lead, it'll move further down that page. --TrekkiELO ^(Talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the 5 examples are ridiculous, I made them so deliberately to illustrate what I was saying. Although they are ridiculous they are every bit as 'true' and valid as the one in the article. No band gets nominated by default to the Hall of Fame, and while anyone has the right to consider it notable or anomalous that they have not, we only record the opinions of reliable sources in this article. This 'fact' is not cited and has not been raised by anyone of any notability, so doesn't belong here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sound Bites

What are the copyright regulations on sound bites? I've seen some articles post sound bites for, e.g., musical groups. However, I was thinking more along the lines of sound bites for the trivia section, i.e. "Please turn me over," or "The music is reversible... (etc.)". Since it's more than 10 years old, is it considered public domain? --Tckma 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

They won't be public domain for another 25 years or so; see Copyright law of the United Kingdom. However considering that The Beatles article has samples, it shouldn't be a problem (but IANAL). Otterdam 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

US copyright law makes an exemption for "Fair Use" for the "limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship" (from the introduction of the article on Fair use). The four-part test is:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Short samples to provide the reader with a reminder of ELO's unique sound would greatly add to the utility of the article. Sadly, Wikipedia is overrun with amateur bureaucrats who will come in and remove them. K8 fan (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Collective Nouns and Plural form of past tense "To Be"

I would like to suggest changing the "to be" verbs where applied to "group" and "band" to the singular form. For example:

Change "Electric Light Orchestra, commonly abbreviated to ELO, were a rock group from Birmingham..." to "Electric Light Orchestra, commonly abbreviated to ELO, was a rock group from Birmingham..." and "It was in the United States that the band were first successful..." to "It was in the United States that the band was first successful...". Both a "band" and "group" are a collective nouns constituting a single unit. Additionally these sentences don't refer to actions or events relating to individuals within the group but rather events and actions taken by the band as a whole collective unit. Therefore I believe "was" would be more appropriate.Darthaho (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But bands consist of individuals, and a band is usually and consistently referred to in the third person plural.

Nuttyskin (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"usually and consistently" seems unusually inconsistent. For example, the sentence following the lede is "ELO was formed . . . " BruceSwanson (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is correct UK English. The difference is between where the emphasis is; the band as a discrete unit, or the band as a collection of individuals. You'll find it explained here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Band's-name-in-spanish controversy

There should be a reference to the origin of the band's name cause in some spanish-spoken countries the band is wrongly referred with the name of "Orquesta Luz Eléctrica", like if it was an orchestra named Electric Light (as the light that electric lamps emit), instead of thinking that is a lightweight orchestra that uses electric instruments. --Manuel Cuevas 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that either interpretation would be correct. Given that their first album had a big light bulb on the cover (at least the U.S. release), and an early version of the second album had it as well, the possible confusion was intentional -- it's a pun. So, "Orquesta Luz Eléctrica" doesn't seem so terrible. Truthfully, I'm so used to the name and was so young when I became familiar with them, I had never even thought about the "light orchestra" interpretation until now. Regardless, whatever discussion of the origin of the name would need to be sourced - it'd be good to have something authoritative from Roy Wood or Jeff Lynne describing what they were thinking rather than just assuming. -- RobLa 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize that it was intended as a double meaning. I always thought, you know, the light that electric lamps emit. Reading this article (especially the trivia) has given me newfound appreciation for the band (I've liked them since college -- which was in the late 90s for me). --Tckma 02:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Having an authoritative comment would be great. I took account of this matter when I once saw an album of sci-fi movies themes from a Space Light Orchestra and since the Space Light term make few sense, I thaught that the same could be happen with ELO, I commented this with others that agreed with me. Also I've heard de Orquestra Luz Eléctrica name from an mexican radio station (Universal Stereo) notable for always try to translate all the songs and bands names into spanish, often with disastrous results (such as "Kiss on my list" translated as "Lista de besos" and things like that). --Manuel Cuevas 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

How about not translating it at all? You don't hear English speakers talk about Puerto Rico as Port Rich...

I'm with you --Manuel Cuevas 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On the BBC Radio 2 programme transmitted on 7th July 2005, Jeff Lynne explained about the origin of the name. Back in the 1960's the band members were familiar with the usage on radio of "light orchestras", eg. the Midland Light Orchestra or the Southern Light Orchestra. So they decided to use a play on words, and settled on the Electric Light Orchestra - an intended pun! The subsequent use of the light bulb graphic inadvertently distracted fans from the original thinking behind the name. I'll leave it up to you chaps if you wish to include this in the main text for the ELO page. Rob Orland 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a quotation (I unfortunately can't source its provenance, but someone like Leon Theremin or some other musical innovator) in which the speaker expresses the desire that one were able to access the musical power of an entire orchestra as easily as switching on a lightbulb - anticipating the electronic synthesiser.

Nuttyskin (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in the 1960's the band members were familiar with the usage on radio of "light orchestras", eg. the Midland Light Orchestra or the Southern Light Orchestra. So they decided to use a play on words, and settled on the Electric Light Orchestra - an intended pun! indeed, these 'light' orchestras played lighter, more tuneful compositions, (as opposed to the 'heavy' classical music) - see Light music. 'Light music' was really the equivalent of orchestral pop music at a time when the average person in the street may not have had much liking for 'proper' Classical music. A big user of Light music was Ealing Studios so if you've ever watched an Ealing comedy you'll know the musical style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Discography inclusions

Can we discuss the merits of what should be included in this list like grown-ups, rather than tit-for-tat editing?

To start the ball rolling;

• I'm suspect there are guidelines somewhere regarding this. But I can't find them. Anyone know?
• Otherwise I think live albums are generally kept separate from new material in studio albums.
• There have been (it seems) dozens of ELO compilations over the years. No point in listing them.
• Whether the new album, Mr Blue Sky, of re-recorded hits counts as an original studio album, or just another compilation seems like a judgement call (unless guidelines can be found that say differently). I'd say it should be listed, but happy to be persuaded differently.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for that. Generally these sections only include regular studio releases (no compilations, EPs, or live albums). As for the new album I say it should be included, as the recordings on it do not feature on any other release so it is a new release under the ELO banner. Also, for what it's worth, the Arch Enemy Discography includes a similar release (The Root of All Evil).

Duncan3dc (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Like an adult, I made my case for removal and showed everybody at least one precedence, I'm sure there are more out there, but again, Roy Orbison did the exact same thing from 1985-1987 by re-recording his original hits on In Dreams: The Greatest Hits and it's listed under his discography as a compilation, not as any of his proper studio albums, so Mr. Blue Sky and The Root of All Evil should both be removed as well.

I also seem to lose all these arguments one way or another anyway.

TrekkiELO (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that we can't add too much weight to existing articles, the Roy Orbison one isn't a great example as the main article doesn't list any albums so isn't really comparable. I presume the logic for not including certain releases on the main article discography is their significance to the history of a band. For example a live release or regular compilation isn't a signficant achievment or milestone for a band. However my argument is that Mr. Blue Sky is much more significant than those releases, although I accept it maybe isn't as significant as an album of completely new material.

Duncan3dc (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because some fan hasn't updated Roy Orbison's yet.

Gordon Lightfoot did pretty much the exact same thing with Gord's Gold and Gord's Gold, Vol. 2 in 1975 and 1988 respectively and both of 'em aren't listed on his main article discography, shall I go on?

Another difference is The Root of All Evil doesn't scream compilation like In Dreams: The Greatest Hits and Mr. Blue Sky does with The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra even tagged on, thus they signify previous released material, re-recordings or not, it sticks out like a sore thumb here.

Jeff Lynne should have released this as his 3rd solo album, it's just past hits where he plays every instrument anyway with one new song, except Laura Lynne who did four sets of background vocals, see the interview with K-Earth 101.

Flashback, Afterglow, The Night the Light Went On in Long Beach, Olé ELO, ELO's Greatest Hits, Strange Magic, All Over the World, Ticket to the Moon and The Essential 2 CD are at least as significant if not moreso than Mr. Blue Sky, especially those first three as there are recordings on 'em that do not feature on any other release so those were new releases under the ELO banner in 2000, 1990 and 1974 respectively.

All Music Guide, a bigger authority on music than this site, has even listed it under their compilations section for Electric Light Orchestra.

--TrekkiELO (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth waiting a short while to see how it is described after release? There is a danger that it may be assumed to just be another compilation, but re-assessed after release. I'd also be interested to know just how much "reinterpretation" has gone into the new recordings, or is it just re-recordings made to avoid licensing issues on the originals. (I've heard albums like that, they're invariably pretty dire.) I'm just wondering if the degree of originality should play any part in deciding if it counts as a 'new' album. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read their review by Stephen Thomas Erlewine?

"Mr. Blue Sky: The Very Best finds Jeff Lynne meticulously re-creating ELO's biggest hits in a series of re-recordings that are surprisingly close to the originals."

No originality there, I've already heard this album myself, indeed they are close to the originals, so it still reads, looks and sounds like a compilation for me along with many other fans.--TrekkiELO (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Also as a fan close to this situation I know that Jeff Lynne did these re-recordings mainly because of licensing issues with Sony over his originals--TrekkiELO (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Should be treated as a greatest hits. However, it does extend the band's existence (even if it's only Lynne & Tandy) into 2012. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no ELO band anymore, Richard Tandy isn't even on "Mr. Blue Sky: The Very Best of" at all, see my earlier reply edit above, so this should now be removed!--TrekkiELO (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr Who

What about setting up a trivia section with elo's prominent featuring in the recent Dr Who episode "Love and Monsters"? any thoughts....

Leonie Miller

That info was what I was looking for when I came to check out this article…Sigh…74.73.152.5 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Personnel - Sarah O'Brien – cello (2001)

This band member appears to link to the wrong person. The referenced link is for a poet of the same name, I suspect this is probably not the right target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.139.226.71 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. The violinist Sarah O'Brien doesn't have an article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I'm starting this section so that User:QueryOne can better explain the association between ELO and the acts he has reverted 3 times to add to the article, in breech of WP:3RR and WP:BRD. His last edit summary suggested that they had performed with ELO, or were members of ELO. I am not aware of this being the case, so he could explain?

• George Harrison
• Roy Orbison
• Tom Petty

In what way are these acts associated with ELO, rather than by way of later working with Jeff Lynne? If we are to list acts that members of ELO have subsequently worked with, we would have a rather long list of little meaning. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Remove all. The only link here is the short-lived supergroup Traveling Wilburys, which itself doesn't even belong under "associated acts". The infobox's documentation clearly states that "groups with only one member in common" should not be used in the associated_acts field. By extension, there's no logical reason to list individual members of such groups. QueryOne (talk · contribs) insists in his edit summaries that "there were other associations with thesecartiss than just the Wilbury's" [sic]. Being a Beatle nut with fairly good knowledge of each of their solo careers, I do not believe this to be the case with Harrison, nor am I aware of the others having connections to ELO. If there are sources to verify such associations then QueryOne should be prepared to state them. CtP (t • c) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jeff Lynne produced for Harrison. However, the infobox's documentation also states that "Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts" should be avoided, which is exactly what Lynne's association with these acts is (i.e. he produced for them). So they shouldn't be there even indirectly by way of Lynne. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't realize that. Still, it's probably QueryOne's (unfounded) justification for including them, having stated that "the association with Jeff Lynne is sufficient" when in reality there isn't much of an association in the first place. CtP (t • c) 00:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As User:QueryOne has directly refused to contribute to any discussion about his edit and is content to edit war over it, I am reverting it again as disruptive editing against consensus and guidelines. It appears he has a habit of this type of editing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to add; I'm uncertain about User talk:Chris the Paleontologist's recommendation to delete all, for a number of reasons, but happy to discuss. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you thought, but for clarification, when I said "remove all" I was only referring to the three above (Harrison, Orbison, and Petty). I may have sounded like I wanted to remove all associated acts, but this was not the meaning I intended to convey (I, too would be hesitant with regards to such a proposal). CtP (t • c) 22:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For transparency, I should disclose in adding the section on the 2014 Hyde Park performance, that I SMed them twice on stage, in their touring days at Loughborough University in 1974 and 1975. I think if we can identify the lead violinist of this gig, only credited on stage as Eva, she should be added to the meme, as she took a frontline performer's role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.150.110 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to the last, the violinist has been identified as Chereene Allen - http://elobeatlesforever.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/review-jeff-lynne-hyde-park.html

In terms of George Harrison, he did guest on several tracks of Zoom, which despite it really being a solo album has to be considered ELO, and i does sound like ELO, anyway, George did contribute to that record on multiple tracks, therefore a closer association with ELO.Joshua0228 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hold On Tight

My memory is failing a bit, but wasn't "Hold On Tight" also used for commercials in the 80's for the "Coffee Drinkers of America"? If I remember correctly these commercials showed up frequently on MTV at the time. I might be confusing this with a Weird Al spoof of the commercial. Anyone remember a little more clearly than I? --163.150.15.182 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, your memory is correct. It was a generic advertisement touting coffee; not any particular brand name. I can't remember who sponsored it (maybe the National Federation of Coffee Growers). It had a caption (or maybe a "voice over") that mentioned the "Coffee Generation" with Jeff Lynne singing in the background, "Hold on tight, to your dreams".

I remember quite clearly "Hold On Tight" used in commercials for milk, not coffee. This was a time before the "Got Milk" campaign, when milk was down in popularity. Afrayer 01:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be 10 years late with this comment. First commenter's memory is perfect. The TV advertisement for coffee (no question about it -- not milk) ran circa 1982-83 with Super Bowl runner-up quarterback Kenny Anderson of the Bengals in the video. Starbucks was still a small corner establishment, but Howard Schultz knew this ad spoke the truth. And may I state completely gratuitously, Jeff Lynne and ELO have always been spectacular! Hyde Park 2014 was amazing, praying for USA tour in 2015. Jrgilb (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Change of Name

Anyone have a source that explains the subtle change of name to "Jeff Lynne's ELO" ? I suspect it'll be some tedious legal thing, but it would be good to have some kind of explanation in the article. It also kind of raises the question of what exactly makes "Jeff Lynne's ELO" a continuation of Electric Light Orchestra that ELO Part II and The Orchestra weren't. Obviously the presence of Lynne makes all the difference, but it's worth establishing some solid rational. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about this too but from what I see there is absolutely no difference between "Jeff Lynne's ELO", "Electric Light Orchestra", "ELO", or "The Electric Light Orchestra" – all the names this band has been known by. It's probably most telling that jefflynneselo.com is currently acting as the official site for ELO. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably not a legal issue since Lynne owns trademarks for "Electric Light Orchestra" and "ELO" (in the U.S. anyway). The question should be why include ELO in the name when Alone in the Universe is a solo album? Piriczki (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

'Better promotion' is a good reason.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. But in that case why not just call it an Electric Light Orchestra album? That's the name people want to see. Does Lynne really need the promotion for his own name? There's more to this, I'm sure. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to invite @TrekkiELO: to this conversation. Can we please stop the edit warring and discuss. My points;

• The design on a album cover is not the last word in determining a band's name. ELO could simply have been used on the spine cause it fits easier than Electric Light Orchestra.
  • Wrong, because Balance of Power went back to Electric Light Orchestra on its vinyl LP/7"/45 singles, cassette tape and CD, please see my replies below.--TrekkiELO (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Even if it were, Secret Messages says "Electric Light Orchestra" on it
  • An ELO symbol is hidden on that very same Secret Messages album cover.--TrekkiELO (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• When a band officially changes name, it almost always for good reason and often a legal issue when a band splits. It's not done on a whim. There is nothing to suggest that The Electric Light Orchestra ceased to exist prior to the release of Time and then re-assembled for Secret Messages.
  • In this case they did and it didn't officially change back until Balance of Power , please see my replies below.--TrekkiELO (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• ELO and (the) Electric Light Orchestra have all been used as names of the same band. Labelling releases with different naming is just confusing.
  • No more confusing than Jeff Lynne essentially recording then releasing solo albums by passing them off as Electric Light Orchestra albums and Jeff Lynne's ELO with Zoom, Mr. Blue Sky: The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra and Alone in the Universe (Not even Richard Tandy is on the latter two as he only plays in the live band now!) respectively.--TrekkiELO (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Whether "Jeff Lynne's ELO" constitutes another name and/or a subtly different band is unclear presently. We've a few guesses, nothing certain. In the meantime it seems sensible to consider it the same band until cited evidence says otherwise.
• In which case there's no need to go back through the back catalogue and make a distinction between releases that essentially mean nothing, and makes absolutely no difference to their status as recordings by The Electric Light Orchestra.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've read a claim where, in fact, Lynne did announce that the official name of Electric Light Orchestra had changed to "ELO" for the Time album. I agree it's confusing to label each release in that section. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to label Alone in the Universe as "Jeff Lynne's ELO" when everyone can agree that it's as legit an ELO album as Zoom was. Unless it's officially stated somewhere that "Jeff Lynne's ELO" and "ELO" should be considered different entities, no distinctions need be noted.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Billboard books of Top Pop Albums, Top 40 Albums, Top Pop Singles and Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn credits Secret Messages and Time along with all of their respective 7"/45 singles from those albums as E.L.O. & ELO respectively in the 4 book's entries under Electric Light Orchestra.--TrekkiELO (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any clear source to explain what was going on with these name changes (supposing they were name changes) then I would suggest attempting to categorise/distinguish albums is simply an exercise in original research, not to mention being of no clear relevance or point. Do these name changes make any difference to the reader? Are they not more likely to either just be ignored, or confuse? Did they make any clear difference to the albums released under one or other name? If Jeff Lynne owns the names ELO and Electric Light Orchestra, then he can do whatever he likes under them. Anyone's feelings about his "solo" releases "passing off" as ELO are irrelevant. However, if a source can be found that explains a most definite policy of officially shifting names, then great. I'm sure many of the article's readers would love to hear about it. Me included. Until then, there are many bits and pieces that could be assembled to suggest practically anything you like. Let's not do that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ELO Reunion

Hello,

While reading the article I noticed that ELO's comeback is noted as being in 2012. Instead, this reformation of the band took place in 2014, for the Hyde Park show (see Jeff Lynne's ELO: Live in Hyde Park). User Ilovetopaint keeps changing it back to 2012 under the arguments that Jeff Lynne and Richard Tandy reunited in 2012 for a series of recordings of ELO hits. This argument is invalid as it was never assumed a comeback of the band but mere live recording of hits on Lynne's home, never released as an album, never promoted as a comeback for both Lynne nor Tandy. It doesn't even match the milestone of a return. His second argument is that Mr. Blue Sky: The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra is branded as an ELO album and so it should be considered as the comeback album. My arguments on this are:

• Its a greatest hits/compilation album: Though all tracks are re-recorded, Lynne only did it to perfect songs which he felt weren't well-recorded. He considers it as a compialtion album as The Very Best of the Electric Light Orchestra, Strange Magic: The Best of Electric Light Orchestra, All Over the World: The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra, Ticket to the Moon: The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra Volume 2 and so on. At no point through the album's promotion in 2012 was implied that it's a comeback album. If we consider a compilation as an main album, then ELO never disbanded: after all, lots of compilations with previously unreleased material were released over the decades (Afterglow, which features re-recordings of Xanadu). Mr Blue Sky: The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra is just another one, probably more promoted because Lynne holds full credits for these re-recordings.
• Jeff Lynne's ELO Alone in the Universe is the band's reformation album, after their show on Hyde Park (official reformation). It is implied by Mr. Lynne in almost every single interview -be it with The Guardian, The Independent, Stereogum, MOJO or Rolling Stone- that this is the comeback and that there were "almost fifteen years" since ELO's last album Zoom and disbanding. The band reformation implies the new line-up for touring (the same musicians from Hyde Park are the ones playing along Mr. Lynne and Tandy for the Alone in the Universe Tour) and the release of this new album.

Thank you and I hope we can discuss this, and I invite Ilovetopaint to discuss if he wishes aswell.--181.166.154.196 (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

None of this is needed in the lead, so whether reformation happened in 2012 or 2014 doesn't matter. Recent years are essentially a footnote to the ELO story, and filling the lead with detail about them is recentism. The sections devoted to these years explain what was going on in detail, without anyone needing to arbitrarily decide which event counts as 'reformation'. Personally, I don't think anyone can declare ELO being reformed other than the precise occasions when Lynne has performed or released under the name. And calling that a "reformation" is pushing it when it's essentially just him and (sometimes) Tandy. So it's far from clear exactly when ELO is active. Lynne uses the name when it suits him, and Tandy is involved when it suits Lynne. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Is Jeff Lynne's ELO considered real ELO?" The question probably 90% of this article's daily visitors are wondering when they access it. A notable alias isn't recentism. You know what a footnote is? That they had a #1 on the Radio & Records chart in 1979. The lead is barely even a paragraph's length anyway. It should be expanded to include some band history, styles/genres, most important albums, and more about cultural impact.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iloveyopaint for helping, hopefully we've been able to sort this out. About Escape Orbit's statements: It is as needed in the lead as Oasis lead noting they were called The Rain. And, in fact, is much more necessary, for ELO's original line-up disbanded in 1986 and not all of it's derivations are the real ELO: They're not ELO Part II, The Orchestra, OrKestra, The Music of ELO, etc. The real ELO is Jeff Lynne's ELO, for Jeff owns the name legally and only added his name to diferentiate this ELO from imitations (this information is on the reference of the sentence on the artcile). Was this album only recorded by him? Yes, because, apart from two other persons involved in the art (his daughter on backing vocals and his engineer on two instruments), this a solo effort. But why ELO? Because Lynne's formed a line-up which has not changed since the show in Hyde Park. This line-up doesn't appear on the album because Lynne is able to play every instrument himself, but it has been playing as Jeff Lynne's ELO for two years and counting. In a similar point of view, I could state that "Orchestra" is a liying term for this "band", because the Orchestra is not part of the band and every string arrangement is a lie to consumers just for selling (ELO dismissed its cellos and violins in 1979, and was never composed of a full orchestra). Going back, a similar thing occurred on 2011 with a different line-up, and Lynne says he likes the idea of a one-man band for recording. Leaving this information out would be hiding it from a place it should obviously be: on the lead, for this band's changed its name two times: on 1981 it was called simply ELO, and turned back to it's full lenght form on 1983. The one ocurred in 2014 is the second name change. Thank you for replying anyway!--181.166.154.196 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. My point was not about including mention of "Jeff Lynne's ELO", but about taking the lead off into a tangent about whether they reformed in 2012, if you consider a couple of performances with Tandy reforming, or maybe it was 2014, and what about the re-recorded compilation, maybe that counts, and didn't Lynne appear on stage once with Tandy before then ... etc .. etc. And then once the reader has been confused/bored with this largely irrelevant detail about the last few years, the lead did a jump back to 1972 that wasn't clearly signposted. As I said, the lead doesn't need this detail and the average reader doesn't care. Broadly speaking, as far as the last 30 years is concerned, Lynne is ELO when he wants to be, and it doesn't take a 'reformation' to bring about ELO activity. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead shouldn't discuss whether it was in 2014 or in 2012. It only has to note the real year. As I said, the re-recorded compilation wouldn't count, according to my arguments above. The reader wouldn't be confused if be put one and only one clear date. Ilovetopaint has clarified this already on the article. As he said, the average reader right now wants to know about Jeff Lynne's ELO, and after all, a name change must is very, very important. About ELO activity, yes, indeed it's difficult to state when it ends and when it begins again. But reformations are much more precise and we have data on this: 2014 is the date. Thank you.--190.221.220.147 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

legacy discussion

The legacy section as currently written is meaningless. It is a single fragment form one music writer. This fragment seems useful as part of a full discussion, but it does not suffice on its own. I have deleted the existing legacy section as inappropriate until someone prepares a somewhat full discussion. Jrgilb (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/oct/16/elo-better-than-beatles?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Jrgilb (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In its current form, the legacy section is fragmentary, completely meaningless and useless. This article is significantly worse for including it. I have twice deleted it, only to have my deletion reverted. Oh well, you win. Jrgilb (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty rubbish. But I think what it needs is made better, rather than being removed. There must be more sources that say something about this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Source for disco

If anyone has a source that proves Electric Light Orchestra does disco then please add it immediately. I searched Don't bring me down on google (Since it is based off of disco) but couldn't find anything from a reliable source that cites the song as disco. I already have disco added, just need a source for it. If you listen to Don't Bring Me Down and the Xanadu songs they recorded for the movie then you'll hear the disco influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob9999 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the addition. It can be re-added when/if such a source is found. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

http://thequietus.com/articles/01380-the-quietus-looks-back-at-the-cosmic-career-of-elo

Relevant passage from Quietus article by Joseph Stannard:

'Ideally, Discovery would live up to its title and showcase Lynne's wholehearted embrace of disco, thumbing his nose to the rockist screed of the times and... oh, you know. Unfortunately, only two tracks really justify the allusive title; fortunately, they happen to be 'Shine A Little Love' and 'Last Train To London', two of the finest fusions of metronomic groove and shiny pop songcraft ever created. Lynne clearly relished the challenge of getting booties shaking to his overwrought melodic masterpieces, but didn't feel quite confident enough to stage a full-blown crossover.'

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/sep/15/jeff-lynnes-elo-review-radio-2-hyde-park-london-electric-light-orchestra

And please note the headline of this article in The Guardian.

Jrgilb (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Describing something as "School-disco" is not the same as "disco" genre. I can't argue with the assessment of 'Shine A Little Love' and 'Last Train To London', but they are just two tracks, off one album, in a history of 40+ years. I don't think they merit classing the band genre as "disco". ELO has skirted a few genres in its time, and the info box is supposed to be a generalised, at-a-glance, summary. It shouldn't attempt to list every possible genre from every possible song, otherwise the summary becomes a meaningless list. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if anyone includes it or not, I was just responding to the request for references to the disco influences heard in ELO music. It is common knowledge and was widely accepted that Discovery reflected a disco flavor unlike other ELO LPs. The next one, Time, and subsequent LPs did not incorporate disco. Jrgilb (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The genres of musical artists come from published sources describing the artist, not from sources describing albums or songs. There are plenty of examples of an artist producing a song or album in a different genre than the artist is normally associated with. In the musical artist biography infobox we stick with the genres that are normally associated with the artist. Any movement away from those genres should be described in the article body.

My main point is that song genres and album genres are not necessarily artist genres. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electric Light Orchestra. 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/20111004174019/http://www.riaa.com:80/index.php to http://www.riaa.com/index.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eatonmusic.com/clark.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mini tour

In May/June 1972, following the Greyhound gig and release of the debut album, ELO embarked on a short tour which included the Cambridge Corn Exchange, at which they were supported by Colin Blunstone and American folk/rock group FF&Z. the tour culminated with a return to Croydon, this time at the Fairfield Hall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5E50:B700:341A:539:1BF9:FAB (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just some things I noticed

• I noticed some language that could use some clarity. For example: the line, "After Wood's departure in 1972, Lynne became the band's leader, arranging and producing every album while writing virtually all of their original material" could be altered to specify what exactly Lynne had written that way it's numerically clear what his contributions were.
• Also, some of the sources have a clear bias and, for the sake of neutrality, it may be effective to note that bias. Footnote 57, for example, is quite opinionated upon reading, and, at first, didn't seem to have a clear link to the fact it was intended to support.
• As for the sources themselves, some were seemingly unsubstantiated or unreliable. For this, I turn to footnotes 61 and 62. 61 seemed relatively unreliable, but the source, itself, stated that it received its information elsewhere. My thought is that it may be more effective to cite the source where that website got its information, if at all possible. Additionally, source 62 is possibly plagiarized from this URL . It requires a citation that would allow the reader direct access to the link as well as a re-write to avoid plagiarism.
• Lastly, I saw some, possibly unavoidable, inconsistencies in hyperlinks for the current and former members (i.e. some had links showing their involvement, but others did not have such links). Just to solidify the members' connection to ELO, citations could be expanded to every member. Willowwalsh (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm relatively unversed in the Wikipedia editing universe, so I wasn't able to change reference no. 62; however, I was able to generate a citation for the URL which will need to be added, if possible. Citation: "Eldorado (Electric Light Orchestra Album)." Wikiwand. Wikipedia. Web. Also, this Wikipedia source only substantiates that Louis Clark was an orchestral and choral director and arranger. There was no evidence to support that he worked with the synthesizers and keyboards (this would need another source if one can be found). Therefore, the wording: "Louis Clark – conductor, arranger, synthesisers, keyboards (1974–1986)" would need to be changed until it can be supported, factually.

Thanks!Willowwalsh (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

There's no way that timeline can be right. If anything, ELO has become a solo project. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Name

Disputed name section states that:

The band's name is an intended pun [..] also using "electric" rock instruments combined with a "light orchestra" (orchestras with only a few cellos and violins that were popular in Britain during the 1960s).

My understanding- and by implication the meaning that is given by linking to that article!- is that "light orchestra" refers to the genre of music they play, i.e. "light orchestral music" or simply "light music"; the sort of thing that was at its peak in the interwar and immediate post-WWII era in the United Kingdom.

It doesn't support the assertion that a "light orchestra" refers to one with only a small number of instruments (even if that happens to be the case with most of them). Is there any basis for this claim? Ubcule (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

The idea that British English not only allows but mandates a plural treatment of a single band's name is nonsense. I am British (born London, 1967) and more to the point, I am an expert on the English language. The verb form that should be preferred, without question, when identifying the band especially, is the singular is. Confusion about this is a modern phenomenon: no Edwardian, for instance, would dare to say that 'your hair are nice' or 'the sky are blue' simply because a head of hair has multiple threads or the sky has many objects in it!

Unfortunately your opinion of UK English doesn't affect how the language is used. And your examples are poorly chosen and do not reflect the usage here. Please read this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Touring Members

It is unlikely that there will ever be a "referenceable" link for active and past touring members, other than looking for the latest video of band-member introductions on YouTube or posting a photo of the tour program (which would be concerning re: copyright).

That said: my edits of 6/28/2019 were 100% correct. Richard Tandy is NOT on the 2019 tour; edits indicating that he would be were made (apparently unquestioned) earlier this year. Rosie Langley is verifiably not present either; Jo Webb, Steve Turner, and Jessie Murphy verifiably are. Here you go, 6/6/2019 in Vancouver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qW202LVEHc

Finally: This entire section is un-cited. If people are going to revert reasonable, good-faith edits without proof of their own, the whole section should simply be deleted. Sparklynn 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

members timeline graph

Is there a way to remove those lines that originate in the lower left corner and go across the graph obscuring it? They don't seem to add anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C12:5E00:7C72:F642:BE5C:FA6C (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! Are the diagonal lines in Electric Light Orchestra#Timeline a technical error, or are they supposed to represent something? GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to "break" a timeline to leave out a period of time? Like a visual [ ... ] of sorts? The two huge gaps of "nothing" (mid 80's - 2001 and 2001 - 2014) frankly make the timelines rather hard to interpret, especially for the touring members from the JLELO era. Plus, the latest edits to the Members timeline have made it it wide enough to where it actually has to scroll on my laptop screen. That's generally a poor design choice.

Re: the diagonal lines mentioned above, I don't see them. Browser issue maybe? I'm in Safari/MacOS.

Sparklynn (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

2018 Commonwealth Games

Re: the paragraph

The band continued to tour in 2018 and performed at the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Closing Ceremony during the handover presentation of Birmingham 2022 joining rapper Lady Sanity.

I am nearly certain this statement is based on a misreading of the reference (https://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php/articles/1063753/elo-to-have-role-in-birmingham-2022-handover-alongside-rap-artist-and-cast-of-youngsters). There is no indication that Lynne or the band were present in Australia -- in fact, nearly the entire band kicked off a tour with Gary Barlow on 16th April in Scotland (the Closing Ceremony was 15 April, per the reference), and they would have been in heavy rehearsals the week prior. It is almost physically impossible for them to have been in Australia the day before the confirmed Barlow show.

A close reading of the reference indicates only that Mr Blue Sky was played as backup to a dance performance at the Birmingham event, and makes no suggestion that Lynne or his band were actually present. However, I'm hesitant to simply delete the paragraph, in case there's better evidence that I have failed to find. (It seems like a pretty random thing for someone to include solely on the basis of an article they read.)

Sparklynn (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Lynne's ELO Members: 2013 or 2014? and Tandy's Status

This could easily become an edit war: Did "Jeff Lynne's ELO" and its current members begin in 2013 or 2014?

The current article (15 July 2019 at 23:00 UTC) uses both dates. It retains the 2014 start date for Jeff Lynne's ELO (the first use of the JL-ELO name was at the Hyde Park concert in September 2014), but changes the starting tenure of the current band members to 2013 (from 2014).

The November 2013 Children in Need performance did use mostly the same musicians as 2014 onward, but it was advertised as "Jeff Lynne and Friends," and not as "Jeff Lynne's ELO." The musicians themselves were present as the house band for the entire Children in Need event, and were not advertised as part of Lynne's personal band or "ELO." At the time, Lynne's appearance really was intended as a one-off, and the band were more correctly described as the Take That/Gary Barlow band (as they are identified in the Hyde Park 2014 section) or the Mike Stevens band.

My personal preference would be to date the musicians' tenure from the 2014 Hyde Park concert, when "Jeff Lynne's ELO" made its first formal appearance. That said, 2013 is not exactly incorrect either. Is there an established resolution for such judgement calls?

Semi-related: the current (July 2019) status of Richard Tandy is controversial. I have no horse in this race, but Tandy has been moved between the "current" and "former" members sections half a dozen times over the last months. I am content to leave him as "former," because he is not on the current 2019 tour, but AFAIK the last official statement from Lynne (in the 2017 Wembley DVD) was that Tandy would return. I don't want to see this generate. Are there any real references anywhere, for either point of view?

Sparklynn (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Would ELO fit into Chamber Pop ? Baroque Rock ?

Hello, I just stuimbled upon Wikipedia articles about Chamber pop and Baroque pop. I haven't read about that before, so it's new to me, but I had to immediately think of ELO. I wonder whether ELO would fit into that ? - There is even an article with Orchestral pop - Besides, Chamber pop isn't listed in any Pop/Rock category. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Trojan Tapes/"Fred From Stoke" sessions

I've lately stumbled on something that, given the present circumstances across the world, demands to be brought to light. However, as it's more than a little surprising at first glance, I'd like to clear it here before editing the page proper.

First, a question. Rob Porter's "Jeff Lynne Songs Database" is a source we're allowed to fall back on, correct? He's well-researched, and several of ELO's articles refer back to it.

Assuming the answer to that is yes, I feel like the following linked articles bear mentioning, particularly "Give Me Fever". http://www.jefflynnesongs.com/popup.php?data=GiveMeFever197565_popupplus#details http://www.jefflynnesongs.com/popup.php?data=OSoLonely197564_popupplus http://www.jefflynnesongs.com/popup.php?data=MaMaMaBelle197384_popupplus

I feel like these bear mentioning in some capacity, but this isn't something I suggest lightly. A working title with a racial slur? Another with some very lewd innuendo? As for "Auntie Bollocks", perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but could it be transphobic?

You people are much more experienced in editing and citing in Wikipedia than I am. I hope you'll help me do what's right. BlaccKat (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Inferring some meaning from "Auntie Bollocks" is entirely original research and not in the source. It could simply be a reflection of someone's opinion of the song's quality. The other track is "According to someone" and "supposedly complete", and doesn't sound too verifiable. It's a "working title" of an unreleased track on a bootleg CDR. Meaning the title could have be invented by anyone that the tapes passed through before being leaked. It could have left the studio as an unnamed take of a jam session.

But none of this is notable, it's at best trivia of interest to fans only. It doesn't demand to be brought to light, and it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to do that, even if it did. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Principal Band Members

Much as a I love them both, recent additions about Mik Kaminski and Kelly Groucutt are not merited.

Firstly, the cite used to support Kaminski's inclusion involves Dhani Harrison failing to even name-check him. This does not demonstrate he is a principal member. If anything it does the exact opposite.

Secondly, if we are to credit Groucutt with "co-lead vocals", we need a good source that does this. Listing tours he was on does not do this, if anything it is original synthesis, which is not permissible. While Groucutt's backing vocals was a feature of ELO, and he was lead singer on the occasional song, I don't think we'll find any source calling him "co-lead vocalist". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I can respect that line of thinking. It's a shame Jeff almost never discusses these things, and if Bev, Mik, Lou, or or the others give interviews nowadays, I can't find them. Leads to a serious lack of clarity, and makes it hard to credit anyone besides the 'core three' of Jeff, Bev, and Richard for anything. Thanks for the explanation. BlaccKat (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is it even listed like this? Why "Principal members" not "Current members" and "Former members" like every other band page? What makes this band different that the members need to be listed in an extremely irregular way? Besides I would hardly call someone who was in a band that's lasted 51 years for just 2 years a "Principal member" when the band has had 49 years without him. That's like calling Tim "Ripper" Owens a "principal member" of Judas Priest or Blaze Bayley as "principal member" of Iron Maiden which are obviously ridiculous claims to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's like because that's what contributes to this article have settled on. There is a separate article for members of the band, so this section should really only be a summary of that. I'm not convinced that what's there currently is the best way of doing that. What suggestions do you have?

Your change has now been reverted three times and you are edit warring. I strongly advise you to reach consensus for any change before you continue editing the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is what makes Roy Wood for instance a "Principal member" exactly? He was only in the band from 1970–1972. That is only 2 years and he only contributed to 2 studio albums. The band has been around for 51 years and have released 15 studio albums. Roy Wood's contributions don't even make up 10% of the band's history. There are 11 members who have been in the band longer and contributed to more albums than Roy yet Roy gets listed as a "Principal member" and listed with the current members on the main band article despite not being a member since 1972 while the others don't and are hidden away in a separate article. What is the logic in this bizarre system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Presumably because Wood was a founding member, co-lead and song-writer. Something that none of the others can claim except Lynne. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

So how come Dave Mustaine isn't listed with the current members of Metallica? He fits all of those criteria. Oh yeah because he's not a current member so he gets listed in the former members section! How come there's no "Principal members" section for any other band? Why is ELO the only band on Wikipedia that has a "Principal band members" section? Why can't they have members listed in former and current like every other band? Why should members who have made far more contributions be hidden in a separate article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What works for the Metallica article is not really the point. This article is not the only article to have this section. The section is a summary of a pretty comprehensive article that was moved out of the main article, most likely for reasons of its size. No-one is "hidden", most are mentioned in full within this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Again that doesn't answer my very simple question.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

No one owes you an answer. You want to change the article, the onus is on you to suggest how you would improve it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Umm yes they do owe me an answer. I've found a serious flaw with something in the article and no one can explain why it's that way despite no other article on Wikipedia doing it the same way. No the onus is on you to suggest why this bizarre way of listing members is better than Wikipedia's standard version that all other band articles in existence use.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is not the only article to use this. And I hardly class this as a serious flaw. Please suggest how you would summarise the List_of_Electric_Light_Orchestra_members article differently. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)