Talk:Riders on the Storm

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

Untitled[edit]

Note: the album prints the length of the song, accurate or not, as 7:14.

What does this mean and why is it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.167.155 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a reference to Quaaludes, large white pills which in the US bore the inscription "Rorer 714", (later "Lemon 714"). By the time I was a teenager in the late 70s, this album was associated with taking "downs", especially ludes, at least among my clique in the Bronx NY. People even used to say the two "O"s in the Doors logo was meant to look like the reverse side of a quaalude. 75.69.189.182 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)sean[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Riders45.jpg[edit]

Image:Riders45.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a killer on the road[edit]

It has also been suggested that the song is about Charles Manson and/or Billy Cook. I wonder does anyone have any references to support either of these claims?. The lyric certainly takes some radical departures from "(Ghost) Riders in the Sky: A Cowboy Legend", even if that was it's inspiration. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the killer may have been Morrison himself. Apparently, in his film "The Highway", he had telephoned poet Michael McClure and made a false confession to a murder on the highway, simply hanging up with no explanation and only admitting the hoax to McClure later. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics "There's a killer on the road/His brain is squirming like a toad" and "If you give this man a ride, sweet family will die/Killer on the road" most definitely refer to Billy Cook, a mentally unstable criminal. He once posed as a hitchhiker and managed to hitch a ride with Carl Mosser, an Illinois farmer, his family, and their dog all en route to New Mexico, then forcing him to drive around for 72 hours, before killing them all and the dog and dumped them all in a mineshaft just outside of Cook's hometown of Joplin, Missouri. Jschoenborn (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty speculative to me. Unless there are some actual sources to link this lyric to Cook, I don't think you can say that it "most definitely" refers to him. There's no evidence this is a reference to any real life event - for all we know, it could be Morrison's artistic creation. Without any convincing proof, I'm going to call this original research. 62.78.230.2 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of dog, "thrownness", Heidegger and Bloch[edit]

Why is there a picture of the dog? I'm not clear on how that is relevant to the song or The Doors. I'm not a big contributor to Wikipedia, but I looked at past edits and saw it was removed only to be added back, but couldn't find an explanation for why.

Pena47 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it has been used to illustrate the line "like a dog without a bone". But I agree, not very encyclopedic. For all we know this dog might very well have one. It seems unlikely that Jim and his pals had this particular dog in mind when the song was written. Maybe we need an image of "an actor out on loan", or even the house where Morrison was born? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the dog's been finally hauled off to the dog pound. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
most likely added by a Doors aficionado who thought this was an insightful contribution, however it does not adhere to WP:IRELEV Semitransgenic talk. 14:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
might need to snoop out another....? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can User:79.65.55.61 provide any justification for the addtion of this image? 3RR has already been broken as far as I can see. The consensus established here so far is that it is completely irrelvant. This thread has been open since 1 June. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or User:95.238.64.150, who seems to have a remarkably similar geolocate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Into this world we're thrown /
Like a dog without a bone"[1]

See IUP Content please: c:File:Homeless_Dog_Walks_the_Streets_(7705116042).jpg is included in c:Category:Starvation. Everything always written and explained in the edit summary. --79.55.65.61 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain whay you mean please? You seem to be saying that you found a reference source (an article in The Guardian) for this article, which has a picture of a starving dog in it, and therefore we should use that picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you direct us to any ver batim reference to "starvation" in the lyric of the song? Dogs can eat food other than bones, apparently, even Italian ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Simon Critchley, expert on Heidegger, a verse of this song takes up the concept of thrownness that Morrison compares to "a dog without a bone," and the image found in the starvation category represents this idea. Do you not like the picture? Well, but at least do not discard Critchley's reflection throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Thanks a lot. --79.55.65.61 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Critchley may well be an expert on Heidegger. But is he also recognised as an expert on The Doors in general, or on the lyrics of Jim Morrison in particular? Where is there an overt reference to thrownness in this song? Morrison just uses the word "thrown" - that's a pretty simple and ordinary word. Even if we do add this reference, there is no justification for the image of a dog. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, August 2014 (UTC)
seriously? this not worth discussing, please see WP:FORUM, image=WP:IRELEV, plain and simple. Semitransgenic talk. 14:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and besides, Jim and Pam had a "German Shepherd of Being" called Sage. [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]
It's not up to you to recognize if Critchley is "an expert on The Doors in general, or on the lyrics of Jim Morrison in particular". As source, he states a concept and you should have another source against him, not just your opinions. Sources published on the columns of international newspapers have value, but not your ideas. --79.17.11.152 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite right, it's not up to me at all. It's up to a reliable secondary source, which you don't appear to have. Just because Critchley uses his own interpretation, of a single word from a song, as an example in a newspaper article, that doesn't make him significant in terms of that song. Morrison's own view of "thrownness" might have been, but I'm pretty sure we never heard about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Into this world we're thrown" is reminiscent of Heidegger's 'thrownness' (human existence as a basic state). [...] In 1963 at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Jim Morrison heard an influential lecture for him, were discussed the philosophers who have critically dealt with the philosophical tradition, including Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger just as well. „Into this world we're thrown“ erinnert an Heideggers 'Geworfenheit' (als Grundbefindlichkeit menschlichen Daseins)...(Jim Morrison hat 1963 an der Florida State University in Tallahassee eine für ihn einflußreiche Vorlesung gehört, in der Philosophen besprochen wurden, die sich kritisch mit der philosophischen Tradition auseinandergesetzt haben, darunter Friedrich Nietzsche und eben auch Martin Heidegger).

Quite a reliable secondary source, isn't it? NB: the philosopher Thomas Collmer is talking with Krieger and Manzarek, and they two do not disagree with him. --87.18.14.99 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, your argument for adding a picture of a skinny dog into this article is a paragraph from the 2001 German language book The Doors - Die Musik Der Doors by Heinz Gerstenmeyer? Why not add an image of "an actor out on loan"? So Morrison went to a single lecture on Heidegger, some time in 1963 ... And the phrase in ths somng "into this world we're thrown" was the result? Except this is all pure speculation. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, "except this is all pure speculation". But I don't want that picture anymore. As I wrote: "For Simon Critchley, expert on Heidegger, a verse of this song takes up the concept of thrownness that Morrison compares to "a dog without a bone," and the image found in the starvation category represents this idea. Do you not like the picture? Well, but at least do not discard Critchley's reflection throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Thanks a lot". Now I can add: and at least do not discard even the thoughts that Collmer has expressed in the presence of Krieger and Manzarek without being corrected by them. --80.117.126.217 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to know, as you do not have a username, if the picture was being proposed by just one editor or by more than one. But it seems we have now reached consensus that the picture of the dog should not be added. Thomas Collmer does not seem to be particularly notable as a philosopher. But you might like to propose a short textual addition to the article which makes a link between him and Heidegger and Morrison and this song. But pleased be prepared for other editors to disagree with you on it's importance. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not add an image of 'an actor out on loan'?" Yep, that about sums up this whole discussion. Semitransgenic talk. 11:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst Bloch seems to be particularly notable as a philosopher. And in his Das Prinzip Hoffnung (The Principle of Hope) he suggested, before Morrison, the link between thrownness and dog's life: "Sie erträgt kein Hundeleben, das sich ins Seiende nur passiv geworfen fühlt, in undurchschautes, gar jämmerlich anerkanntes" ("It will not tolerate a dog's life which feels itself only passively thrown into What Is, which is not seen through, even wretchedly recognized"). --82.49.4.248 (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Bloch was notable but not particularly notable, as far as philosophers in general go. I'd also suggest that a very tenuous link between two notable subjects doesn't necessarily make that connection itself notable. But I'm open to the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still in the realm of WP:IRELEV. Semitransgenic talk. 10:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am just editing the discussion because of my shock when reading that, as part of the introductory text to the song, there is any need to consider utterly far fetched discussions on Heidegger's philosophy that originate from a single word or sentence from the lyrics. Personally I cannot make any sense of it. But if anyone feels this is relevant information whatsoever, at least it should be moved to the very end of the article.

Actually I think it should be rather removed entirely from the wikipedia article and pasted into songmeanings website instead. I just read above that "the thoughts that Collmer has expressed in the presence of Krieger and Manzarek without being corrected by them." seems to be enough justification to claim this was a view shared by Morrison himself. By the same token you could claim any silly interpretation a participant in an interview makes just because no one is rude enough to tell him to shut up. I vote for absolute "throwness" of this contribution to the bottom of the article, as a side comment. In my view it provides no basic useful information to any reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.233.247 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with that. These philosophical implications, which were surely known to Morrison, could be moved to the "Legacy" section of the article on Heidegger, if there is one. I'd prefer more discussion of the jazzy interplay between Manzarek and Krieger, and whose idea was it to have the thunderclaps and the continuous sound of rain during the song, anyway? Wastrel Way (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Eric[reply]

References

  1. ^ Critchley, Simon (June 29, 2009). "Being and Time, part 4: Thrown into this world". The Guardian. Manchester. Retrieved May 27, 2013. As Jim Morrison intoned many decades ago, 'Into this world we're thrown'. Thrownness (Geworfenheit) is the simple awareness that we always find ourselves somewhere, namely delivered over to a world.

Edit war[edit]

Once a consensus has been reached I, or another admin, will lift the protection. Tiderolls 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An American Prayer[edit]

No mention, that the song is also used on An American Prayer? --BjKa (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it's not included in the tracklist. --79.49.69.222 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Riders on the Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English?[edit]

In the Heidegger section, we read: "... Morrison heard an influential lesson for him, where were discussed philosophers who had a critical look at the philosophical tradition...""... Morrison heard an influential lecture for him, in which were discussed philosophers who critically addressed the philosophical tradition..." Is this acceptable English?? --User:Haraldmmueller 10:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Hi Gerda, could you please help us with the translation of the German quote Jim Morrison hat 1963 an der Florida State University in Tallahassee eine für ihn einflußreiche Vorlesung gehört, in der Philosophen besprochen wurden, die sich kritisch mit der philosophischen Tradition auseinandergesetzt haben, darunter Friedrich Nietzsche und eben auch Martin Heidegger? Thanks so much. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hart Crane's poem "Praise for an Urn"[edit]

The article currently says this:

"The song's title echoes the American poet Hart Crane's poem "Praise for an Urn," which includes the line, "Delicate riders of the storm." Hmmm. Here's a link to the poem: [2].

There's also no source supporting the claim that Morrison "was known to be a fan of his poetry", which might have been a clincher. Any views? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Rhodes piano?[edit]

Is there any reliable source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the source at L.A. Woman is: "Botnick, Bruce (2007). L.A. Woman (booklet). Rhino Records. R2-101155." So I assume that's 100% reliable and could be used here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel[edit]

Could someone possibly explain why this source is not appropriate? Quite happy for any alternative source to be used, of course, instead of the sub-section, which seems wholly uncontroversial, being simply deleted each time. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a link to an image of the back cover. Are you suggesting that it's been altered in some way? It looks remarkably similar to the one that I own. A similar source has been used, for example, at La Grange (song), on the clear advice of another editor? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain in my edit summary why Discogs is not a reliable source and in the above section but perhaps more specifically in this case, how do you know these were the exact and only musicians that performed on this song? The images refer to the album, not the song. Robvanvee 15:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection I do see it says all songs by the Doors. The question still remains as to whether Discogs is a questionable source. The guidelines say it is Robvanvee 16:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to that general advice. Yes, the textual info at discogs.com generally may not be 100% accurate. But let me just get this right, you're suggesting that the cover notes on an album sleeve are not reliable enough to be used as a source for that album? And/or you're suggesting that for one of the tracks on this particular album the musicians played other instruments to the ones listed? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Ojorojo as this is preferable to their talk page and the constant back and forth reverting on the article. Yes I was initially questioning the reliability of the source with regards to the specifics of the song itself until, as I stated above, on closer inspection I noticed the bit with "all songs by the Doors". As to whether these pictures on the site warrant reliable sources or not remains to be answered and until such time you would have no objection from me using them as a source and reinstating the personnel credits. I would like to hear what Ojorojo's objection is if you don't mind hanging on so we can avoid the edit warring. One more thing, could you avoid using bare url's as a reference as inevitably someone has to fill in the info to avoid link rot, thanks. Robvanvee 16:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for no objection. As for "back and forth", I did try to solicit a direct answer from Ojorojo, but thought that two days was long enough to wait. As for "bare urls", I have to admit that I habitually add sources in raw form and then run ReFill to convert one or more. Occasionally I wait a short while in case a sources, or even a whole section, gets reverted.... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For the record, I did ask this here, just to put my mind at ease. Robvanvee 16:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. A very good idea. It's just that, you know, if one has had an album for over 40 years, one tends to know what's printed on the back cover? If one finds an image at discogs.com that looks exactly the same (perhaps apart from a few coffee stains), one tends to think of it as a handy source. I guess I could always take a photo of my own cover and upload it to Commons. But that would also be kind of "user-generated" wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. I wonder what's on the back of the single cover[reply]
p.p.s. I see the source for Personnel at L.A. Woman is this: "Botnick, Bruce (2007). L.A. Woman (booklet). Rhino Records. R2-101155." which I assume is not a cover, but a CD booklet? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here more times than I care to remember: after a minimal attempt to add something without a suitable source, a long exchange of "is this good enough?" ensues, although it usually doesn't directly support the material and/or uses a questionable source that isn't properly cited. I haven't read through all the comments so far (intentionally), but 1) the album cover lists the musicians and their respective instruments for the whole album, not individual songs (Manzarek doesn't play both organ and piano on Riders); 2) discogs.com is not RS and should not be cited/directly linked. There's enough written about the Doors to find better sources. The AllMusic song review (already linked in article) includes: "The shimmering liquefied keyboard sound from Ray Manzarek, John Densmore’s intimate airy ride cymbal and minimalist drumming, as well as Jerry Scheff’s understated bass line". With the current problems with Doors articles, only material with the best sources formatted properly should be added. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "long exchange of "is this good enough""? So, better sources than the actual album cover, yes? What's your view of that CD booklet as a source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to what I questioned initially: how do you know exactly who played what on a song when the source specifies only who "played on the album". While it may seem trivial and perhaps unnecessary, as Ojorojo points out, AllMusic disputes the general album credits (in your source) and suggests Jerry Scheff played bass on the track so it does seem reasonable to request a more reliable source than Discogs in this case. I have seen an album sleeves used as sources but not sure how reliable that is because unless you have the album, how is it verifiable? We have had an incredible amount of disruptive edits made to the Doors articles recently and a reliable source seems like a fair request given the high standard we should all be aiming for. Robvanvee 18:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? The album cover says "Jerry Scheff - bass"? Don't see what the issue is there. I've seen actual books used as sources, but we don't say "not sure how reliable that is because unless you have the book, how is it verifiable?", do we? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, my eyes are failing me. I needed to read that again to see that it said the same thing on the album cover (I didn't realize he played bass on the album) so there is no dispute over who played bass, my apologies. Ojorojo I asked the question here and you can see what the feeling is regarding liner notes. Are you requesting a source to see the song specific credits? Robvanvee 18:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh course, the album cover doesn't say that Manzarek doesn't play organ on this track and Benno doesn't play rhythm guitar. And I guess we can't rely on what people hear with their own ears to verify that. I don't see that any image of the cover actually does any harm. It might just be easier to use the Bruce Botnik booklet source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well the general feeling seems to be that the liner notes are reliable, Discogs is not, should not even be sourced and one should assume good faith, which I do given your longstanding commitment to the project. But that relates to an album and it seems the dispute stems from the need to source the song's credits specifically. Perhaps something can be found that would be mutually considered a reliable source but that isn't Discogs that pertains specifically to the song? Robvanvee 19:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ojorojo, would that suffice? Robvanvee 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the caution placed on cover images at discogs is wholly misplaced, but whatevs. I'd prefer to call it a lively discussion, rather than a dispute. Over 7 years is quite a stint too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's established that the LA Woman album cover/liner notes are not a usable source, problematic edits using it as a source on other songs can be dealt with easily. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the existing source, the "Botnick, Bruce (2007)" CD booklet, is usable or is not usable?? I'd call that "cover/liner notes". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other songs aside, it might be beneficial to clarify this here? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to be making much progress here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No and I too would like to know whether album liner notes are acceptable for this and other albums. Personally, I don't think Discogs should be trusted or even sourced, pics included, but I think liner notes should be acceptable as a source for most situations. Ojorojo, your thoughts here please? Robvanvee 18:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost three weeks and nobody has shown that there are liner notes that list the personnel for the Doors' songs. The notes for L.A. Woman only list the personnel for the whole album; I recall a bio that indicated that Benno only plays on four songs and Scheff isn't on one (the preview cutoff before saying which). I don't remember that their other albums' liner notes are any better. With all the problematic editing on Doors articles, any source should be able to be verified that it specifically indicates the personnel for a particular song. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's 17 days since I asked you that direct question above. So I'll ask again. Is the Botnick source, currently used at the L.A. Woman article, correct or not? It says: "Jerry Scheff – Bass guitar on all tracks except 6; Marc Benno – Rhythm guitar on tracks 3, 4, 5 and 8". "Riders on the Storm" is track 10 (although the tracks in that article are not listed sequentially - that's something else that needs to be corrected). No great powers of deduction are required to determine that only the four main musicians played on this track? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me – does the "Botnick source, currently used at the L.A. Woman article [actually say] Jerry Scheff – Bass guitar on all tracks except 6; Marc Benno – Rhythm guitar on tracks 3, 4, 5 and 8"? Better yet, provide a link that shows it, because all liner notes I've seen don't list the personnel for the songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Exactly which liner notes have you seen? So it's ok to use the Botnick source that you don't believe over at the L.A. Woman, but not here. What difference will it make if I buy a copy of that CD, just to tell you what's on the notes? You think I haven't already searched for an online link to save me that trouble? I must have assumed that you might have a copy. Or even that you'd help search for a link. Seems I was sadly mistaken. Have I got this right now - you won't accept what's on a printed liner notes insert, as you haven't personally seen a copy. But you're willing to accept an online link to an image of the same (provided it's not published by discogs.com, of course)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I am to understand Ojorojo's concern correctly, the Botnick liner do not specify which musicians played on which tracks, in this case the dispute being this particular song. I do agree that we need a reliable source to determine this and the liner notes most likely only mention musicians on the album as a whole. Do we have a reliable source that mentions the musicians on this song specifically? Robvanvee 07:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the Personnel section at L.A. Woman is to be believed (and that seems key as per any printed source?), the Botnick notes do mention individual musicians on individual tracks for Scheff and Benno, and Benno is not on that track. The same source says that Manzarek plays Rhodes piano on this track. I don't think anyone would claim that they can't hear vocals, guitar, bass and drums. Are we really suggesting that those instruments were not played by Morrison, Krieger, Scheff and Densmore respectively? Reckless WP:OR I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I also think it's unlikely we'd find a more reliable source than Bruce Botnick, as he was actually there engineering the recording (although three of the musicians themselves are also still alive)?
So the problem is the huge WP:OR involved there?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to IP:91.140.71.113, who seems to have now found a perfectly good source for all five musicians.I'm mot sure any more sources are needed there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but now, after 90 minutes, we're back to square one again with this revert? Although the edit summary seems to offer no rationale. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it doesn't mention any brands like Fender Rhodes. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the words "Fender Rhodes" could simply be omitted? As I noted in the thread above, Botnik's CD notes are still good enough for the same claim at L.A. Woman? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this source a WP:RS or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added personnel section using sources already in the article. Without some context, why is it important to list "Fender Rhodes", "Gibson SG", etc. (needs additional RS)? This sort of detail is better in a "Recording"-type section, where it can be explained if noteworthy. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. That didn't take long at all, did it. Important, I guess, only insofar as it's a basic fact. Like the fact that the crows in Wheatfield with Crows are painted black and not brown. I guess it's pretty obvious to the viewer there, just as it is to listener here. No objection to it being included in a "Recording"-type section, if that's really preferred. Although I see Rhodes piano had now also disappeared from L.A. Woman, even though Bokink's 40th Anniversary Edition CD liner notes, which give a track-by-track breakdown of the exact instrumentation, is still there. I would have thought that, if a source can be trusted, it should be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020[edit]

Unkownsolidier (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC) I want to add a source for personnel. The correct instrument is not piano, is Fender Rhodes piano.[1][reply]

@Unkownsoldier: Interesting. Is that the fuller-sized keyboard or piano bass? Perhaps you could copy the passage in which it appears. BTW, a Rhodes piano is piano, like an electric guitar is a guitar. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo: In the page Rhodes Piano on notable users says: He also played a full-sized Rhodes in the studio, such as a Mark I Stage 73 on "Riders on the Storm". —Unkownsolidier 7:58, 8 July 2020

OK. I'll add it. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ojorojo, you ever feel, touch, or listened closely to a Rhodes? I know it's a piano, but man is it a special kind of piano. A fantastic instrument. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a keyboard player, but I fiddled around with a Korg-something once. Listened to them though, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even the 40th Anniversary edition of L.A. Woman, like the original vinyl sleeve, lists only "piano, organ" for Manzarek, e.g. [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lenhoff, Alan; Robertson, David (2019). Classic Keys: Keyboard sounds that launched rock music. University of North Texas Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-57441-776-0.

Who wrote Riders on the Storm?[edit]

A lot of people are coming to this Wiki page to find out. But a quick scan of the article doesn't seem to say, unless I missed it. Seems to me that info should be in the first paragraph. Thanks for fixing. 2600:8801:BE26:2700:ED12:2681:FFCC:D393 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Jim[reply]

The infobox lists all four members of the band as the songwriters. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riders_on_the_Storm&oldid=1203077744"