Talk:The Monkees/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Monkee Redirect (removal?)

Monkee is a common misspelling of Monkey (the animal), which of course has its own Wikipedia page. Do we really believe that someone entering Monkee is looking for the band "The Monkees" as opposed to simply the animal "Monkey"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.238.123 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Albums without pages

Hey, do you think we should add pages for these Monkees' albums - 25th Anniversary Collection (1992), The Definitive Monkees (Disc 1) / (Bonus Disc) (2001), Monkeemania (The Very Best of the Monkees) (2011)? I could do it myself, but it would take alot of hard work, given that I'm not the best editor on the wikipedia, free encyclopedia. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now already published them. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

122 Monkees songs or 185?

Between 1966 and 1970, The Monkees released 185 songs on 9 stereo albums, 5 mono albums, and 9 non-LP singles.

I've just calculated all the Monkees songs they released between 1966 and 1970 (including 1971), but the total of songs that I calculated only adds up to 122. The songs in question were from:

Albums:

• The Monkees (1966) - 12 songs
• More of the Monkees (1967) - 12 songs
• Headquarters (1967) - 14 songs
• Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn and Jones Limited (1967) - 13 songs
• The Birds, the Bees & the Monkees (1968) - 12 songs
• Head (1968) - 14 songs
• Instant Replay (1969) - 12 songs
• The Monkees Present (1969) - 12 songs
• Changes (1970) - 12 songs

Singles:

• A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You (1967) - 2 non LP songs, 1 withdrawn non LP song
• Daydream Believer (1967) - 1 non LP song
• D.W. Washburn (1968) - 2 non LP songs
• Listen to the Band (1969) - 1 non LP song
• Do It in the Name of Love (1971) - 2 non LP songs

Were the people that calculated the songs and got 185, also counting the songs that were on the TV series, and the Italian version of the Theme from the Monkees? Because if they did, it explains why their calculations were different from mine. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Could add "garage rock" to infobox

You might think this is odd coming from someone who specializes in unknown 60s garage bands, that I would champion the case of a pre-fabricated, made-for-TV group that made millions, while so many of the bands I write about never got very far. But, I would love to see "garage rock" placed in the infobox as one of their stylistic genres. They (with the help of the wrecking crew) created some of the greatest garage punk anthems ever devised, such as "Stepping Stone," "Words," "Pleasant Valley Sunday" (with its reference to the "rock group down the street"), and "Valeri"...all sung by Micky Dolenz, of course. They were a garage band (in theory) made for Saturday morning TV at a time when every band wanted to be a "little Beatles" in their neighborhood. I don't mean to say that they were garage rock in the definitive kind of way of a group as, say, The Seeds or the Shadows of Knight, but that garage rock was one of their several stylistic hallmarks (perhaps even their main stylistic hallmark) and that they were very good at it. They have "cred" with GP66!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no problem with that, as long as you have a reliable source that calls them "garage rock". Mlpearc (open channel) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a fair request. Obviously, the task is for me to find a good reference. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The reliability of your reference will be the next question Mlpearc (open channel) 01:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Would an NPR article pass muster? I found an article by Mark Hirsh. It appeared on March 1, 2012, in Monkey See: Pop Culture News and Analysis form NPR. He refers to their version of "Stepping Stone" as "as good a garage-rock track as has ever been produced, and a punk touchstone." Here is a link. [1] Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict) NPR or NPR Music ? No in my opinion, it would be too easy for that to be a personal opinion, I'm thinking something like All Music or Rolling Stone or the like. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We should find those kinds of references. I would say that, even if we were to decide to use the "garage rock" tag, we would only put it in the info box, mentioned after pop and rock (as a secondary stylistic attribute). Perhaps we could also mention bubblegum (?), in the same fashion, there, if sources warranted. Whereas, in the heading of the main text, it would probably be best to just keep things the same (i.e. just say "rock, pop") as is now the case. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Monkees' Roles as Musicians

Personally, I believe that the lineup should have been: Micky Dolenz - Rhythm Guitarist / David Jones - Drummer / Michael Nesmith - Bass Guitarist / Peter Tork - Lead Guitarist.

Rather than: Micky Dolenz - Drummer / David Jones - Guitarist / Michael Nesmith - Lead Guitarist / Peter Tork - Bass Guitarist.

Who cares if David Jones is short? I'm not trying to sound critical or objective but I'm sure they could have found another solution. I mean when the Monkees overthrew Kirshner and became proper musicians, Micky only lasted just more than one album before stepping down from drums and allowing a session musician to take his place. The Monkees would indefinetely have lasted longer as a group. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

All of you make some great points here! Although Micky Dolenz wasn't much of a drummer (he learned to be adequate with time), he was the secret weapon of the Monkees. It was his lead vocals that really lit up all of the truly great rockin' anthems by the group. Davy Jones sang the mushy ones that only your grandmother would want to hear, whereas Dolenz sang the cool punky classics!!! But, you are right, Jones was a much better drummer than Dolenz. And, Micheal Nesmith and Peter Tork were terrific instrumentalist's and songwriters. So, in a perfect world, I would have Dolenz out front on lead vocals (and obligatory 1966 tambourine, of course). I'd keep Nesmith and Tork right in their perfect places. And, I'd put Jones on drums. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page for improving the article, and discussions should remain focussed upon that goal. Wikipedia isn't the place for making posts about our personal views of the band or 'dream team' line-up. There are many forums catering for that sort of thing; this isn't one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowdenford (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter and Micky's instruments in the timeline

The member's timeline has Peter as bass/vocals and Micky as drums/vocals throughout their tenures with the band. Isn't it a little inaccurate to present it that way? Certainly its appropriate up until 1968, as these were the instruments they played in concert. But Peter never really played bass in reunion concerts, except for the Justus era (1995-1997). For other reunion eras, he should really be listed with guitar as his primary instrument. Micky is another story. In-studio he's really only a drummer on Headquarters, but he was the concert drummer up until the '68 tour. In the 1969 tour, however, he had no instrumental role (Mike was the only one to play, the Monkees were backed by Sam and the Goodtimers), only vocal. In reunions, he was the main drummer through the Justus era, but regularly played during the 2012-2014 tours. More often, he played guitar. So here's what I'm proposing, to more accurately present information: Peter should be bass and vocals 1996-1968 and 1995-1997, but guitar and vocals during the other reunion stints. Micky's primary instrument should be vocals, with drums as a secondary instrument 1966-68, 1995-1997, and 2012-2014. Thoughts? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality, citation, and accuracy issues

The "Studio recordings controversy" section has almost no citations (only 4, using just 3 different sources, over the 7 paragraphs). One of the three citations that it actually uses is to a YouTube video, which does not even contain the stated quotation. The purported quote is: "One reporter in 1967 tried to get Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead to comment on the Monkees' 'fake' albums, and he responded that 'they were good albums, and they should be since they have good musicians playing on them.'" The video obviously contains nothing that demonstrates that the people speaking are Jerry Garcia and/or a reporter. And, in any case, the quote is: "[T]heir records are pretty good. And they should be good, because they have the best, like the best available studio musicians. They have good arrangers." So the quote itself is inaccurate and it conveys a meaning very different than the sentence that this "source" supposedly supports.

Moreover, the section is riddled with glowing references to The Monkees, such as saying that they were "generally welcomed by many British stars, who realized that the group included talented musicians and sympathized with their wish to have more creative control over their music." Conversely, it refers to the criticisms of them as a "myth" and that they were "falsely" accused of not playing their instruments. It uses weasel words ("Many Monkees fans") to muddy the waters further.

And, of course, there are just a ton of unsourced statements that obviously require citation. A particularly egregious example is the statement that the band "did play [all their own instruments] while touring (except for the solo segments which used backing band the Candy Store Prophets)."

Unless these issues are resolved, I would recommend that the entire section be deleted. As it stands, it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic section. Niremetal (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A few thing I noticed in the "Studio recordings controversy" section I found lacking and hope someone who, unlike me, can write coherent English could clear up.

It is mentioned a number of times that Peter Tork played in folk bands/ensembles. Don't many books and documentaries about Tork, The Monkees, and 60's California music mention that Hall of Famers John Phillips and Steven Stills were in and out of same bands. I always see Stills cited as the person that recommended Tork to the producers of the show.

I have also seen it mentioned in many places that the reason Michael Nesmith was allowed to write and produce songs, was that he had a top-40 hit on the charts at the time he auditioned for the show. He had written "Different Drum" by Linda Ronstadt with the Stone Poneys.

While most of this section could be backed up with citations(nothing herein isn't anything i have not read or seen in books and documentaries), I agree this section should be deleted as un-encyclopedic. Besides there is no similar section for bands like the Beach Boys, the Byrds or other bands that used studio musicians. The only difference I see between the Monkees and the Byrds, who also did not play on their first albums, was that the former had a pre-teen T.V. show. (sorry, unsigned as i am a newbe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8D00:7D7D:F1BD:80C:3CC4:6060 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Session musicians

This is just a theory, but I'd say that one of the reasons why The Monkees were initially forbidden to play their own instruments, may have been because they were supposed to be an imaginary band (and imaginary people can't play real live instruments). But still it would have been silly, not allowing them to even sing on their first two albums. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

An arguable point, but unfortunately not one that can be readily pursued here because it is speculative and contravenes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Bowdenford (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason i've always seen cited was the limitation of having only 24 hours a day, with 12 of those hours dedicated to filming for T.V.. Perhaps some biography books about Don Kirshner, and a few do exist, could provide further information and a counter-balance to the band/actor's POV. (pardon, still learning so no sign in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8D00:7D7D:F1BD:80C:3CC4:6060 (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Meeting The Beatles / The Hollywood Vampires

Whereas it's true Dolenz did hang out with "The Hollywood Vampires" … the MAIN vampire is missing! ALICE COOPER collected and instigated this "drinking club" of fellow musicians. ( More recently having released an album as "The Hollywood Vampires" , with many past members , oddly omitting Dolenz and Starr. ) 75.104.174.78 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New book

Why The Monkees Matter by Rosanne Welch, McFarland, 2016 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nesmith - former member

As Nez has announced that the Pantages show was his last appearance with the Monkees, I believe it is appropriate to begin listing him as a former member of the band. Although he may change his mind in the future, his announcement is what we have to go on for now and we need to take it at face value. I figured I should go here first, as this change may be controversial, but we should reflect the current state of the band in the most accurate manner possible. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Meeting the Beatles (Controversy?)

Why is the "Meeting the Beatles" segment inside the "Controversies" section? There is no mention of anything controversial about any of it. --Sm5574 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Monkees 1966.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Present or past tense?

The lede currently still refers to the band in the present tense: does anyone have a reliable source to indicate whether the two surviving members intend to continue using the name for artistic works? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Corrections in this and similar Monkees articles

I've been receiving threats of being banned from editing Wikipedia articles just for doing nothing but correcting punctuation errors and reducing capitalizations where I feel that none is needed in this and similar Monkees articles. I must protest.

One that I can think of right now is changing "Single a-side", which is wrong, to "Single A-side", which is right. Another is, in the Head section of this article, changing the wrong name of "Monkees Theme" to the right name, "(Theme From) The Monkees" (I even explained why this was done in the neccessary space). A third was, when song titles had their second pair of quotation marks placed after a comma, putting them before the comma (which is the right way to write this).

I worked all day on this, only to be threatened with banning out of nowhere. This isn't right, as I've corrected other errors of this type before on other articles in the past and no one complained before to this amount of severity.

I want something to please be done about this as soon as possible, because this is completely unacceptable. Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on what you've written here, the edits which you've described seem legitimate. However, it's not immediately clear what the context of these threats is: can you post a link to the discussion, so other editors can see exactly what has been said by whom and perhaps contribute there, rather than on this project talk page? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Years Active

Recently I have noticed a trend that some users have attempted to change the "years active" section to read "1966-present." Thankfully these changes have been reverted, but I thought it would be prudent to address that issue here. Personally, I feel it is a significant over-simplification of history, and also very misleading, to ignore the fact that the Monkees have been active on and off for the past 52 years. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:680:A4E7:6D37:FCC4:65C5:6D5B (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

As one who has reverted the "1966-present" edits several times, I agree. There were certainly years where they were completely inactive (no touring or song recording/releases). —hulmem (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The Monkess - inactive since December 2016?

The Monkees have not engaged in any group activity since the end of the 50th anniversary tour, and with the upcoming Nesmith/Dolenz tour adamantly not being a Monkees tour (Nez: "there's no pretense there about Micky and I being the Monkees. We're not."), it seems unlikely that there will be any activity as "The Monkees" in the near future. I think it's appropriate to say that the last bout of Monkees activity that began in 2011 ended in December 2016 the 50th anniversary tour, as there has been no activity for over a year and none seems likely anytime soon. Anyone disagree? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In answer to this comment and the earlier comment you have made, I would like to give my POV. IMHO Michael Nesmith is unclear wether he still sees himself as a Monkee. You reference a show which is called The Monkees Present: The Mike & Micky Show. This indicates to me that they still hark back to the days they were The Monkees, although they call it The Mike & Micky Show. As Davy Jones had already died and Peter Tork (who was still alive at the time) declined to take part, they could not call themselves The Monkees. Although I am not aware of Peter Tork objecting to the title of their show, specifically the The Monkees Present bit, of which Peter Tork must have been a specific part. IMHO Peter Tork therefore qualifies more for being called a former Monkee than Nesmith. JHvW 07:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

This is what is stated on the front page of the Monkee's official website : "MONKEES 2019 TOUR DATES (Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - 1:18pm) Hey, Hey! The Monkees may be coming to YOUR town very soon ... Check out these dates for Michael Nesmith, Micky Dolenz and The Monkees upcoming concerts". In my view this clearly indicates that these concerts are considered as being by "The Monkees" and not just as concerts of Monkees' music by Nesmith and Dolenz. Yahboo (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Associated acts

OK, can someone explain the association of the Who, Green Day, and the Beastie Boys? Meanwhile, my inclusion of the obvious (Jimi Hendrix and Shoe Suede Blues) get reverted out. (If you don't know why Hendrix is "associated" you don't belong editing a Monkees wiki). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.155.13 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Associated acts should share two or more bandmembers, or they should have collaborated on multiple songs. No red links should be listed. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So how are The Who, Green Day, and the Beastie Boys associated? They certainly don't share any members and haven't collaborated on songs.

By that standard, the First National Band doesn't count as it only contains Nesmith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.155.13 (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Unknown Abbreviation/Term

What does “b/w” mean? I have never seen this before, but I have seen this in many articles concerning modern music only on Wikipedia. Am I the only one who does not understand this jargon? Shouldn’t these articles be written without using specialized terms unless there is a link that explains them? Rod Lockwood (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It means "backed with"; the A-side will be backed with the B-side. In the case of the Monkees, one use would be "Daydream Believer" b/w "Words." Hope that helps EPBeatles (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Umm… hi. There's this online (like the Internet and all) tool called Wikipedia: A-side and B-side#B/W I'm certain the abbreviation has been in music-fan use since at least the early 1970s; the cited ref quotes a Billboard use of "c/w" ("coupled with") dating 1958. To be fair, likely anyone under 30 years of age (or over 80) may never have encountered this, and as well would be utterly confused when we refer to "vinyl."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Old Sixties rocker here, nourished on a diet of vinyl, and I distinctly recall 'b/w' used on lists of new releases published in my peak record-buying days, which is roughly 1962 - 1972.

'Hey Jude' b/w 'Revolution' comes to mind at once.

It is in truth a silly abbreviation. Literally it's 'backed OR with'. Like A/C, which reads as 'air' OR 'conditioning'.2001:44B8:3102:BB00:3850:F72B:1E2C:BE62 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Phil Spector Quote

Does anyone know anything about this? It appears to have a valid reference, but as quoted there is no context. I think it should either be worked directly into the main narrative with better description, referenced in some way from the main narrative (Phil Spector isn't even mentioned, except for the quote), or removed altogether. It's a very old addition to the page, but it looks like people have danced around it rather than dealing with it directly. It isn't even attached to the same section it originally was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm5574 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it. Please do not undo this change unless you can provide context for the quote. --Sm5574 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Mickey Dolenz sole band member?

Really? Is he going to go out doing shows as The Monkee?
I think by this point there should be a serious look at whether the Monkees should now be treated as a defunct band.2.24.70.181 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Have reclassified him as a former band member. The lede already begins "The Monkees WERE ..." anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.70.181 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Dates

I'm not sure some of these dates should be listed as-is. There were no official Monkees activities (other than the occasional compilation album) after 1970 until the 1986 reunion. Everything the guys did within that time frame was unofficial and did not use the Monkees name because they did not have the rights to it. So, for example, saying the group was active in 1971 or 1976 is not accurate. Some of the members performed together or released recordings, yes, but not as the Monkees. That's like saying Led Zeppelin was active in 1994 because Page and Plant did an album together. --Sm5574 (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede

I'm making some very minor changes to the lede for consistency and readability. If anyone thinks the lede needs significant changes, please discuss it here. --Sm5574 (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Lots of shuffling going on in the lede. I'm going to try to consolidate a little, and make the intro paragraph slightly more comprehensive. --Sm5574 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Micky Dolenz Celebrates The Monkees Tour

I'm not sure this belongs on the Monkees page. It's really a Micky solo project, not officially the Monkees. IMO, other than a potential rally from Rhino or Sandoval with some sort of new material, as far as this page is concerned, the Monkees ended with Nesmith's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm5574 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes to Lede

I'm reverting the latest changes to the lede. A couple of them are fine (such as saying "comprised" and "sitcom"), but most are problematic, and I'm not going to dig through them all. Specifically, uses of the word "band" outside of the album releases are inaccurate for the early days. Rafelson did not envision creating a band at all (he was only creating a TV show about a band), and the Monkees were in no way a band until well into Kirshner's tenure. In fact, I'd argue that he got himself fired by trying to prove that they weren't a band. Thus, "group" is a better word to use, as it is free of any connotation, and includes all activities of the Monkees. I'm not saying that the wording can't be improved, but please discuss it here first.

The "actors/musicians" wording is awkward, but it's accurate, as all were hired to be actors, and all had experience as musicians and used their musicianship in the Monkees. Saying that "actors and musicians" were hired makes them sound like separate groups of people. That's another that should be discussed here first, so we can come to an agreement, rather than polluting the revision history. Sm5574 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your revert, and I understand the reasoning. However, I don't think the current prose is solving the problems you think it does.

Regarding "group" vs "band": the very first sentence says "The Monkees were an American pop rock band". The lead uses the word "band" several times after that. As many sources seem to use the word "band", I think we can use it without concern.

Additionally, readers will perceive the words as interchangeable in most contexts, and will not think: "Ah, I guess they were not a band really because Wikipedia has used the word group." If there is something specific you want to communicate about how they were in some meaningful sense not a band, then that should instead be spelled out in the prose, because that isn't conveyed simply by using "group" instead.

Regarding the "actors/musicians" wording: slashes are to be avoided per MOS:SLASH, "because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how". I would suggest removing the wording entirely and saying the band just comprised these four guys, and we can get into the complexities of their roles, or whatever, later in the lead if we think that's necessary. Popcornfud (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, how about this for a rewording of the first paragraph: "The Monkees were an American pop rock band, formed in Los Angeles in 1966, whose lineup consisted of Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith, Peter Tork and Davy Jones. Conceived in 1965 by television producers Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider as a fictional band for the situation comedy series of the same name, music credited to the Monkees was released on LP, as well as being included in the show, which aired from 1966 to 1968."

I'm not sure that anything beyond that needs to be changed. Sm5574 (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, but I think some of the text is still a little clunky, and we still have the WP:OFTHESAMENAME problem. Here is what I would write:

The Monkees were an American pop rock band formed in Los Angeles in 1966, comprising Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith, Peter Tork and Davy Jones. They were conceived as a fictional band in 1965 by the television producers Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider for the sitcom The Monkees. Music credited to the Monkees appeared in the sitcom, which aired from 1966 to 1968, and was released on LP.

That's without getting into the rest of the lead — there is probably a better way to explain all this to be honest. Popcornfud (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There is undoubtedly a better way to explain all this, but we've been through it before, and the problem always becomes a matter of length. There's a ton of drama with the story of the Monkees, but that level of detail does not belong in an introductory section. However, leaving it out is to ignore what makes the story of the Monkees unique. You obviously need the initial concept. Then you need Kirshner because he was indirectly responsible for the "prefab" backlash, which was a scandal that haunted them for decades. You need their independence, because that's what eventually led to their dissolution. You need their reunions because that's where a majority of their fans today know them from. But all that needs to fit into a section that an uninitiated reader can easily digest.

For now, go ahead and make the change you wrote above, but please don't do anything else without further discussion here. Thank you for being civil and open-minded about this. Sm5574 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

About The Monkees

Im fine with whatever revert is here, I was just wondering if The Monkees does count as a fictional/virtual band as they started out as a tv show as their fictional selves. Other websites even label them as fictional too. What would you think? 67.43.190.226 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The TV show was a fictional show about a fictional band, yes. But there are problems with calling the Monkees a fictional band overall. First and foremost, they recorded more albums after the show ended than they did during the show's run. Additionally, every album features music written or co-written by at least one of the Monkees (except Christmas Party, which only has a track co-arranged by Tork), and multiple albums throughout their history featured the members performing instruments and background vocals on the albums (including one album that was entirely written, recorded, and produced without any outside help). You could possibly make the argument that the Monkees was a fictional band for their first two albums, but I don't see how you could make that argument afterward.

When I think of fictional bands, I think of the Archies, the California Raisins, and the Partridge Family (who were the closest to the Monkees, but other than Cassidy and Jones singing lead on most of the songs, did not involve the "band" in the recording process in any way).

I do welcome further debate on the subject. But I think it would start with defining what the criteria is for a non-fictional band. Sm5574 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your overall intake on this matter. I still see The Monkees as fictional even after their show was over (or better term, "semi-fictional"), but I suppose everyone's views varies. You also forgot to bring up Alvin and The Chipmunks/The Chipettes, Josie and The Pussycats, Bratz, Dethklok, and Gorillaz.

Thanks again for your intake. 67.43.190.226 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Endless

This article feels endless. There is a lot of extra detail that makes the article unreadable. Much of it isn't well sourced. I have done some work to fix this problem and intend to do more. MonMothma (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd welcome help from other editors who know more about the subject than I do. MonMothma (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you hold off some, instead of asking for help from other editors while simultaneously undoing their work? This isn't your page, and while many of your edits are justifiable, I don't believe that they are improving the readability at all. For example, I think the lede's flow is much poorer now, even though I agree that it needed to be trimmed.

So perhaps we can have discussions here, instead of just logging in to see huge swaths of text aren't there anymore simply because you don't think they are necessary. Sm5574 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sm5574, I'm sorry you feel that way. If you believe that I deleted any material that should be reinstated, please let me know.

Roughly 40 paragraphs within this article lack any cited sources. Also, the article features a number of lengthy quotations and goes into great detail.

I welcome a discussion about which portions of the unsourced material should be sourced and retained and which portions should be removed. I also welcome a discussion about which of the lengthy quotations and details are germane to the article. MonMothma (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for being harsh. I would ask that you consider those of us who have spent over a decade editing this page as a community, coming to a consensus as to what relevant information should be included, only to have someone rewrite half the page in one day without any discussion at all. My general rule of thumb is, if you want to remove sourced information, discuss it first. If you want to rewrite more than three sentences or so, discuss it first. Claims do not necessarily need to be sourced if they are undisputed. If they are likely true but there is some debate about the particulars, then a "citation needed" tag is appropriate. The only time it's appropriate to remove something without discussion is when it is likely not factual. Sm5574 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding discussions, let's start with this:

I want to restore the part in the lede about allegations that they didn't play their instruments. Wikipedia specifically says that the lede should contain information about relevant controversies. And there was a quote in the article that the rumors persisted, but you deleted it. That is relevant information. In fact, it is one of the things the Monkees are most notorious for. It absolutely belongs in the lede. Sm5574 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Sm5574 for the explanation and apology. I think I understand where you are coming from.

As to the text about rumors persisting that the Monkees did not play their own instruments: You indicated that I had removed a quote on this topic. I went back to look at a version of the article from earlier this month before I made any edits (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Monkees&diff=prev&oldid=1179227491). I don't see that quote. (Maybe I am missing something.) There is a quote from Nesmith about the band being treated as illegitimate, feeling "under siege", being "mocked and humiliated by the press", etc. That quote is still in the article today; it hasn't been removed. But it is not as specific as the language you want to include in the lead. You seem to have a lot of knowledge about the Monkees, so I don't doubt that what you're saying is correct. But I think we need a source for it.

Moving forward, I will take a more collaborative approach on this page. MonMothma (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to collaborate.

There was a quote by Mike (I believe from the Rolling Stone interview) about rumors that he was the only musician of the group, rumors which he indicates at the time of that interview still persisted (he speaks of them in the present tense, I believe his exact words being that they "won't stop"). That is the quote I was referring to. If it is still included, then I missed it, but I believe it speaks directly to the controversy, even though Mike phrases it differently. (After all, how could they be performing as a group on the albums if he's the only musician?) And anecdotally, as a fan since 1987, I can say with absolute certainty the allegations of the Monkees not being a "real" band and not playing their own instruments were very much alive and well through the 1990s, especially among Baby Boomers. It wasn't really until the 2000s that people stopped caring much about that.

The point being, the controversy should be mentioned in the lede, as it is part of the narrative that the Monkees were rapidly falling from grace, which is the kind of thing a summary should at least mention. I definitely agree that the details should be left to the body of the article. Sm5574 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sm5574, I have found the quotation you are looking for. I did remove everything but the final two sentences of it, which are still in the article. Here it is: Nesmith, when asked about the situation, in Rolling Stone magazine, said, "... We were confused, especially me. But all of us shared the desire to play the songs we were singing. Everyone was accomplished--the notion [that] I was the only musician is one of those rumors that got started and won't stop--but it was not true ... We were also kids with our own taste in music and were happier performing songs we liked--and/or wrote--than songs that were handed to us ... The [TV show's] producers [in Hollywood] backed us and David went along. None of us could have fought the battles we did [with the music publishers] without the explicit support of the show's producers."

The clause that you want to restore to the lead reads as follows: "Allegations persisted that they did not perform on their records..." But this quote from Nesmith does not talk about that rumor exactly; rather, it mentions a (possibly related) rumor that Nesmith was the only real musician out of the four band members. This quotation--even if re-added to the article--doesn't support the statement you want to restore to the lead. I think a different source is needed. MonMothma (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

MonMothma, I disagree, as I explained above. But in any case, how about this:

With widespread allegations that they did not play their own instruments, followed by the cancellation of The Monkees, diminishing success on the charts, and waning popularity overall, band members began to leave the group, and the Monkees officially broke up in 1970.

Regarding the broader issue, Wikipedia guidelines expressly state that relevant controversies should be mentioned in the lede, and "not playing their own instruments" was as big a part of the Monkees history as anything else. It absolutely needs to be there. The problem with sources is that they almost all predate the Worldwide Web by decades, making them very difficult to track down. Wikipedia's guidelines even allow for flexibility: "Many times, there are inherently subjective criteria that depend on the specific circumstances or subject matter." That is to say, not every statement in every article has to be sourced with an article in Time or Newsweek when the statements are generally known to be true and are in line with the sources that are available. There is nothing the least bit controversial or inaccurate about anything I have proposed, even if there wasn't a New York Times article in 1969 repeating the claims that the Monkees didn't play their own instruments. The allegations still existed; what would be relevant would be a news article from the time saying that the Monkees had redeemed themselves, or an interview with a member saying that all those allegations were behind them, but as far as I know that never happened. To expect ongoing allegations to be repeated in print (especially over a group that no one cared about anymore) is unrealistic. That's like expecting a news article tomorrow about Milli Vanilli being a scam; just because there isn't one doesn't mean that people suddenly think they were legitimate. Sm5574 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sm5574, I hear you, and I do not object to the inclusion of the revised sentence you proposed. MonMothma (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the controversies section, I propose to do the following: (a) reduce the section on the meeting with the Beatles to one paragraph and move it to the history section. It does not appear to be a controversy; (b) condense the section on the studio recordings controversy, removing unnecessary quotations; and (c) condense the section on the Hall of Fame to one paragraph. I welcome any input from Sm5574 and others. MonMothma (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss which quotations would be removed. I'm okay with the rest. In fact, I'm not convinced the Hall of Fame stuff even belongs on the Monkees page (that's more of a HoF controversy, not a Monkees one). Having a bunch of fans saying that a band deserves a subjective honor is not exactly a controversy, in and of itself. Sm5574 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sm5574, it has been awhile, but I am circling back to this discussion. In looking over the various lengthy quotations (more than four lines) throughout the page, it seems to me that most of them could be either shortened or replaced with a brief one-sentence summary. One exception: The quotation from Nesmith that begins "Everybody in the press and in the hippie movement had got us into their target window as being illegitimate and not worthy of consideration..." is important enough that it should stay in its current form. Shortening or summarizing these quotations would make the article more succinct and improve its flow. I realize that this would be a significant change. What are your thoughts? Are there any other lengthy quotes that you think should remain untouched? I welcome other editors' thoughts as well. MonMothma (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@MonMothma, I don't have a particular opinion on direct quotations, as long as the key information is retained (whether quoted, or paraphrased and cited). My primary concern is, for example, Micky stating that he and Davy initially didn't care about producing the albums, but leaving that out entirely and simply saying the Monkees revolted. That's fine for the lede, but the body should contain enough information to settle the majority of factual debates between fans. Or, to put it another way, we don't want a hole so big that someone feels compelled to come along and fill it. (There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but if the information is already there, we shouldn't delete it just to have someone to come along later and put it back in.)

So trimming quotes, or eliminating them entirely and summarizing any important parts, that's fine with me. I'll see your changes when they happen, and if I have any concerns, I'll bring it up here. Sm5574 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Sm5574. I have gone ahead and made those changes.

My next concern has to do with the history section and the section on the studio recordings controversy. The concern is that a good chunk of the history section addresses the studio recordings controversy, but then we have an entire section later in the article that is devoted solely to that controversy. It feels like the article is covering the same topic at some length multiple times. I would rather (a) remove most of the information on the studio recordings controversy from the history section; or (b) remove or substantially condense the separate section on the studio recordings controversy. What do you think? MonMothma (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@MonMothma, I would prefer to have the controversy covered in the history section. I don't see the need to have a detailed timeline, as long as all the relevant points are covered and quality references are included. But I don't feel strongly either way, as long as the history section retains some mention of it.

Also, I made a couple of minor adjustments to your edits. Even though I don't have any sources, I think it's okay (and necessary) to give a brief mention as to why the show was cancelled. As I mentioned before, no one disputes any of this, and we aren't making any specific claims here, so covering it generally shouldn't be an issue, and it does fill in a glaring gap in the narrative. (I, for one, always wonder why shows get cancelled, especially ones that were still popular at the time.) Sm5574 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, Sm5574. Thanks for your edits. I have gone ahead and removed the separate sections on the studio recordings controversy. I did pull a few facts from that section into the history section. Please feel free to check me on this to see if anything on this topic is out of chronological order in the history section. I did the best I could with it, but you have more subject matter knowledge on this than I do. MonMothma (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)