Talk:Roy Buchanan

NPOV, NOR dispute

Please see my talk page for my reason for adding the NPOV tag. - Jersyko talk 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

To facilitate the POV discussion, I would like to invite other users to look at the following edits: [1], [2], and [3], all written by the same anon editor, keeping in mind whether they adhere to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Then, please see the discussion, also linked in my above post, between me and said anon on my talk page. To sum up my position on the edits, I believe that they violate the two policies I've mentioned, but that there is some salvagable content there. Because, however, I do not know this subject, I have been reluctant to edit the comments myself. I invite other editors to comment on this dispute. - Jersyko talk 02:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, for the sake of civility, I would recommend to both editors to CHILL OUT. Editing can be much more productive and enjoyable if we keep a level head during disagreements.

Now, for the edits, let me mention what I see. In particular, when it comes to WP:NOR, some sentences in the article are not consistent with the statement: "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."

For example:

"Unlike most other revered guitarists, Buchanan favored a mind-expanding treble-lead..."

"The Snakestretchers, a ribald allusion to Buchanan's disdain for the vagaries of the band experience..."

"These approaches taught him how to suppress strings quickly and to finger pick in the 'chicken pickin' style."

"... played Carnegie Hall several times, and is perhaps the only lead guitarist to be able to have consistently headlined there."

When it comes to WP:NPOV, I think this article is a perfect example of needing to abide by this statement: "Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia."

For example:

"Buchanan had the extraordinary ability to execute pinch harmonics on command..."

"...by Buchanan, who was as fast a player as he was precise."

"Buchanan's true forte was as a consummate live performer..."

"His tone, speed, and technique made him unique, and his licks highly prized."

"Buchanan produced stunning live performances..."

"...the extraordinary ability to get 'wah wah' and 'violin swell' effects..."

"...by clever use of the instrument's knobs, and plectrum."

"This happened many years before foot-controlled pedals that turned the guitarist into an effects jockey."

Lastly, and maybe less importantly, the language of the article needs to be written a little more in line with encyclopedias, in order for it to sound more professional. Lines such as:

"...took a typical, if stereotyped, 'country' instrument and taught it to rock and cry the blues."

"...caught Buchanan in bangs and boots with the 'British Walkers'..." (I could be misinterpreting this statement since I honestly do not know what it means.)

"Buchanan insisted on limbering up his hands and fingers..."

"Despite many long periods of walking a 'street called straight'..."

All this, and yet, much of this information is very detailed and interesting. Therefore, if there were a referenced source for much of this information (such as him using "an overgrown thumbnail" to play and playing at Carnegie Hall), then some very good things could be kept in this article. Keeping in mind, though, that a copy edit would still be warranted to get rid of the NPOV and unprofessional language. -Dozenist talk 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

IMO, Jerseyko has created an atmosphere that is not conducive to the task at hand. For example--he cites a few examples that one might kibble about minor edits. Yet, rather than actually EDITING the entry, he totally expunged it, and downplayed what amounts to major--and in your words "interesting'-- addition and expnasion of the entry. In addition, the comments and alleged 'dispute' on the entry are targeted specifically to MY contributions--without any attention to other contributions in the article. IMO, THAT is arbitrary and capricious as actions.

In addition, he has taken what amounts to a critique and disagreement of opinion about STATEMENTS and asserted that this amounts to personal attacks. This has been shown to be demonstrably false; Jerseyko continues to present the bogus allegation.

Go and edit --the WHOLE ENTRY -- and show us what you have in mind.

Cheers,

• Once again, I suggest that you alert an administrator as to my actions if you believe that I have violated Wikipedia policy rather than continuing to ignore the substantive critique of your edits I and now another editor have offered. By continuing to label everything I do and say as "arbitarary, capricious," unthinking, and "invalid," you're doing nothing but make my point for me, however. Once again, the issue is whether your edits adhere to wikipedia policy, and I suggest that you stick to the issue. - Jersyko talk 13:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Once again, I request that you remove the allegation of personal attacks. Once again, I request that you edit. GO EDIT young man.

• The anon made this edit in response to the above suggestions by Dozenist. I merely wanted to point this out. - Jersyko talk 14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have edited the article to remove only the most apparent POV. Another editor with more knowledge of the subject should edit for further POV and original research or unverifiable information, as my lack of knowledge on this subject prevents me from editing further (and has prevented me from editing at all thus far). - Jersyko talk 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Not bad. I think you left out some useful and interesting stuff but I'm willing to step away from it and see what should be added. Give it a few days. Cheers.

When discussing Roy's technique of swelling the volume and/or tone knob, is it necessary to say that modern guitarists are "pedal jockeys"? To whoever feels the need to serve himself by making such poorly thought out assertions, why not save these kinds of tendentious generalizations about guitar playing for your own biography of Roy Buchanan, rather than inflict it on us here? I thought I was reading Wikipedia, not Rolling Stone Magazine. Dkaplowitz 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good comparison. I whole-heartedly agree that a statement like that is undesireable on wikipedia, and thankfully most of that language was removed from the article during the edit dispute shown above. - Dozenist talk 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read jersyko's talk page and above. Jersyko may have had a point in past but little remains relevant now. I've read Buchanan's biography and vaguely followed his career, even heard him live on occassion. You people ought to get your act together - this dispute appears rather childish in the light of how article currently reads. Perhaps you just need an interloper to bring you back to reality. Richard 12:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "Jersyko may have had a good point in the past" but then go on to say "you people ought to get your act together" and "you just need an interloper to bring you back to reality", which obviously contradicts your first statement (if I had a good point, why are you throwing out generalized insults about our debate here?) and fails to take into account that all of the comments on this talk page were made a long time ago. I and others edited the article extensively to remove a lot of the POV and original research by the end of the debate above (see my comment just a few paragraphs up), and left the article in the shape you discovered it in. Sure, little of the debate above remains relevant now, but it was relevant to an older version of the article. The debate allowed us to get the article to where it is now. Consider, in the future, such concerns before making unproductive, quasi-insulting comments on talk pages. - · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of above I rest my case, your comments (and POV tag) were valid a while back and have served their purpose, but you really needed someone to open your eyes as to when it was time to move on. Richard 11:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I didn't mean to sound insulting but I conceed that my comment may be construed so (apologies), I also wish to restate that placing the tag has resulted in an improved article. Richard 12:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there's been a lot of work done on this article trying to correct POV but other problems remain. It still reads somewhat like the work of a fan. Overall, I think it needs to be made to hang together and the references need to be better used. One example: Roy "gained control of his drinking habit" before the article says he had a habit. This article should also mention his signature tunes "Can I Change My Mind" and "The Messiah Will Come Again". IMHO. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Eric

comment on dispute

I must say that I agree with Dozenist and Jersyko's remarks -- regardless of what one thinks about Buchanan, there are three important criteria that need to be respected here (1. an encyclopedic style, (2. npov, and (3. no original research. I know nothing about this individual, but these three requirements are in force for every article on wikipedia. --Zantastik 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a huge fan of Roy Buchanan, I completely understand the edits made by the anon editor. One must consider exactly what Roy Buchanan accomplished for music and guitar playing as a whole when writing a section about him. Buchanan introduced "emotion and feel" into his guitar playing, something that one must witness for himself to fully understand. Thus the complicated subject of the validity of the anon editor's changes; it is impossible to actually verify and prove that a guitarist can "pass" emotion through the sounds of his guitar, although it is very true (in Buchanan's case). Not only that, but once a listener feels the passion in Buchanan's guitar playing, it is very difficult to remain neutral on the subject, explaining the embellished language used to attempt to describe Buchanan's style and other such things. I believe that in the case of the guitar virtuoso Roy Buchanan, it is necessary to express exactly what Buchanan meant to his fans. In an encyclopedia-style article, however, the anon editor could have been more neutral on several points. In summary, I find it necessary to keep the changes made by the anon editor (who is clearly as passionate about Roy Buchanan's music as I am), but perhaps make sure there is a reference to the subjectibity of the points made (i.e. fans of Buchanan describe the powerful emotion he plays with, rather then Buchanan played with amazing power and emotion...)--user: Bassrocker, March 2nd, 2006

Photo

In looking at the article on Roy Buchanan, the photo seems to have been flipped horizontally,before being inserted on this page, indicating he was playing his Telecaster reversed and with the strings upside-down like Jimi Hendrix did. I have seen him in person and in many, many photographs and album covers and have never seen him play this way and don't believe it to be true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.228.142.242 (talk • contribs) 16:31, Feb 21, 2009

• Agreed, the original photo uploaded to Wiki Commons is certainly flipped left to right, I've added a note in the caption. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've corected it. Roy Buchanan always plays his Fender Telecaster like most guitarists on his left side. WikiAR (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

94.218.207.241 (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC) serge gurkski.

I second Zantastico and btw: Bruises on Roy's head prove what exactly? Right, nothing. He was not the first to hang himself bc of hangover depression. That he was a musical genius goes without saying (though I just did say it. Shame on me1 :-) )

I miss him. 94.218.207.241 (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Serge Gurkski

creating distortion by pouring water on the tubes, and citation 15

This citation is a perfect example of the weakness of banking on citations as proof of merit for the inclusion of obviously doubtful information into a Wikipedia article. The idea that one can "pour water on vacuum tubes" and cause them to produce a usable and even magical tube distortion tone is complete and utter rubbish. Further it is a highly dangerous proposition which can easily lead to death for the idiot who reads this article and decides to try it himself...because he "read it on Wikipedia".

However, since this nonsense is published somewhere in a fluffy biography, it is presented in this Wiki as unassailable fact. This ridiculous citation 15 is unsupportable impossibility taken from a non-technical treatise written by an individual who has no electronic engineering credentials. Even a cursory reading of Citation 15 source material reveals that it is nothing more than a printed version of a dangerous and impossible urban legend that some individual told for reasons that are difficult for real amp technicians to fathom. Any credible tube amplifier technician can tell you that "pouring water" over high voltage vacuum tube circuits will not "cause them to glow purple" and produce magical guitar distortion tones. Because of the conductivity of water, what will happen is this: a.) IF the tube envelope doesn't immediately shatter from the shock of sudden cooling, and b.) IF you are not instantly killed by the 300-350 VDC present in the B+ circuit of the typical amp, (which will flow right through the water and into your cardiac muscle, just like a defibrillator!) then you were very fortunate. Presuming you are not dead, what will happen next is that c.) the amp's high voltage B+ plate supply will find some other path to ground, thereby d.) shorting its entire current to ground...This massive current inrush will e.) immediately blow the mains and/or HT fuse, depending on the amp. Either way, the result will not be fabulous distortion tones... it will be instant silence. Gig over...at least until you dry her out, replace the fuse and repair the damage caused by the water.

Further, tubes "glowing purple" as the citation gravely reports as having occurred by the magical Roy Buchanan water experiment, has absolutely no bearing on a tube's distortion or power output. The blueish glow seen in some vacuum tubes is an ionization effect. It is generally caused by outgassing from tubes with depleted getters. The subsequent ionization of the gas which has appeared inside the tube is the source of the eerie blue glow...not "water poured on the tubes causing them to glow purple" as the citation reports.

If by some means Buchanan and/or his amp tech had performed other modifications to an amp in the form of "way-off" bias current settings, they might cause the plates of the power tubes to glow cherry red. This phenomenon wouldn't last long. While it did, the amp would sound like crap, be low on power, and the tubes would quickly overheat and fail. That's an expensive proposition, even in the 1950's.

But, NEVERMIND the truth! This citation is rated V for valid, simply because it is PRINTED IN A BOOK (wwooooooo!!!!) Therefore, I'm just going to leave it. If I dared change, notate, or otherwise question it, I'm sure someone in the WikiPolice will come along and remove my modifications to the story. A crummy citation trumps the well established facts about the no bathing policy for vacuum tube amplifiers. All this because those facts are not printed anywhere except in the common sense training of thousands of tube amplifier technicians just like me. Yes - I've been working on classic vacuum tube guitar amps for over forty years. And for you doubters, yes - I'm old enough that I can say I bought black face Fenders back when black face was the "new" look for Fender. :-) I know the damned things inside out, and pouring water on a black face Fender tube amp won't do anything but ruin a beautiful piece of rock-n-roll history.

Rant is over - business at hand is this. I am going to add a cautionary notation IN THE ARTICLE that this water-tube amp practice is a foolish, dangerous, and useless exercise which can easily kill anyone who tries it. I recommend that other Wiki citation zealots at least leave that warning in place. In exchange for this urgent safety necessity, I will leave the cited story, even though it is utter rubbish. Deal? CoolBlueGlow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC).