Talk:The Nice

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

Clean up[edit]

This article deserves some little improvement, but basically it is a good article, I can't see the reason of putting here a "clean up" tag. --Doktor Who 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it needs more factual information? I'm confused about where they're from; there's a link at the bottom to "British Musical Groups", and Keith Emerson is British, but the article goes straight into U.S. references and doesn't say where the band was based, which country they were performing with Arnold in, or where the other band members were from. Can somebody clarify? Wendy Collings 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "Influence" paragraph instead of putting a "citation needed" tag as it was too much hypothetical information - it would leave a stronger impression in the reader, not mitigated by the "citation needed" tag.--David Be (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have a citation for the "PP Arnold and her Naz" line? I'd swear in the bio book on the Nice that they included the history of the name, and to paraphrase from my memory it was Mrs Arnold suggesting they call themselves "The Naz" but because of her accent the four *thought* she had suggested "The Nice" and ran with that name. If nobody has a citation, i'll dig up the book (relearn wiki tagging) and add the info. 24.225.67.73 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Congrats To The Author(s) Of This Page[edit]

Whomever marked this for cleanup should have their head examined. A really nice piece of work. I added a few updates and will add some album cover pics shortly. Good lord! Cleanup deleted. Tvccs 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guessing the line adorning Keith Emerson as the "unquestioned lord of stadium rock" wasn't in the version that you people read, eh? Hilarious? Yes. Encyclopedic and NPOV? Not in the least. I'm taking that out, and certainly scrutinizing this article a little more harshly in the proceeding days. I'm not convinced that it couldn't use a little partiality. (Of course, that's not to say that the whole article is poor of course.) Charles M. Reed 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

It's a good page, very good compared with others I've seen. However, when most of the albums have their own Wiki pages, how much sense does it make to have that information duplicated in the band's main page? It makes maintenance difficult and could thus give rise to inconsistencies. Also, there's no separate page for the album "Nice", which seems to be a glaring omission. I'll happily volunteer to write it. Comments welcome. Rodhullandemu 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at the "Influence" section. It's a more or less solid block of fandom, IMHO, without references and probably violates Wikipedia:NPOV. There is a lot of speculation which is unsubstantiated. However, from my own POV(!) Nice probably influenced bands like Rare Bird, Atomic Rooster, and others. This needs some looking at, and I have some free time. Also Nice were important enough to be mentioned (indirectly) in "Groupie" by Jenny Fabian, and I would at least include a mention of this. I'll diarise this for a couple of days time & go ahead if nobody objects. --Rodhullandemu 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elegy[edit]

The Elegy entry leads to a general subject article, and Elegy (The Nice album) redirects to the Nice (The Nice album) article which is quite odd. --kAtremer 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page for "Elegy" is under construction & will be up as a stub within a couple of hours; when it is, the links will be sorted. --Rodhullandemu 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comp appearance[edit]

I don't know if such promotional material is considered encyclopedic, so I'll just mention this and leave it up to the folks more active on this article to decide whether or not to include it. A recent issue of Uncut magazine included a CD bonus called "Fill Your Head with Prog", and the song "America" by The Nice was the first track. - Ugliness Man 06:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Nice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    I'm more curious than anything, "Here comes the Naz" - what was that supposed to mean? Is Naz slang for something? Can this be clarified or even wikilinked?
"Here comes the Naz" was a line from a well-known sketch by hipster comic Lord Buckley - "the Naz" meaning Jesus - which is probably its derivation here - but I have no source for that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle is spot on and it's in Hanson's book, so I've added it as a footnote. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is there any particular reason why Leoš Janáček is piped to Janáček (same story with Antonín Dvořák), and why "Sinfonietta" isn't wikilinked to Sinfonietta (Janáček)? "Sinfonietta" just in brackets isn't particularly helpful to people unfamiliar with this artist. As in I wasn't clear that that was were the extract was from by how you've worded the article, I was confused and clicked on the artist link to understand what that meant.
I've redone the links Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why is America wikilinked in the fourth paragraph of the "Early career" sub-section, when the terms America and US both appear prior to this?
Probably something another editor did that I forgot to fix. Per WP:OVERLINK this shouldn't be in there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "which by all accounts was a disaster" - can exactly what made this a disaster be clarified in any useful way to the reader?
Clarified a bit. Apparently the equipment was all third rate, such as running the PA from a single broken plug in a shed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "In 1969, Emerson performed as a session player for" - up to you, but I don't see any need for this to be a one sentence paragraph. Do you think you can merge it with either the above or below paragraphs?
I think I can - have a look now Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "from a brain tumour aged 65" - consider rewording, as it kind of makes it sound like that's how old his tumour was.
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    70% of your citations are to Hanson, which I don't think is ideal, but i'm guessing that's the only book that focuses entirely on the band, and many other reliable sources are used, so I think this is acceptable.
Yes, I've been a little uncomfortable myself, but as you speculate, this is the only officially authorised biography of the band. It drew on back issues of NME and Melody Maker that are now hard to find and featured fresh interviews from everyone except Keith Emerson. It achieved good reviews and received praise for finally filling gaps in the narrative. More info here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've been told during several reviews that if you have a both a 'Notes' and 'Bibliography' section, all books should be placed in the bibliography, even if they are only used once. I'm not sure if there is an official guideline on this, so i'm not going to make you do it, but just something to keep in mind. Feel free to let me know if there is a guideline on this that you know about.
I don't think there is but it's something I've got into the habit of doing recently, so I've {{sfn}}'ed all these. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Placing on hold until minor points are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: - I think all the issues have been addressed, can you take another look? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Well done. Passing. Freikorp (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts[edit]

As ELP and Refugee are connected just by shared members, should they count as associated acts ? I don't think so. -- Beardo (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Template:Infobox musical artist's documentation, they are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That says "The following uses of this field should be avoided:

... Groups with only one member in common"

Surely The Nice - ELP only have one member in common ? - though, true, Refugee had two. -- Beardo (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not work on absolute dogma but prefers common sense. Since ELP was a supergroup, and they covered Nice material from the word go (most obviously "Rondo", which was performed pretty much in the same manner), they would seem to be a related act even though they shared one member (albeit the most famous one). Plus numerous Emerson obituaries (example) mention The Nice at least as a footnote in addition to ELP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moog[edit]

The article suggest that Emerson first used a Moog with ELP. But Rock Eras: Interpretations of Music and Society, 1954-1984 says this: "Keith Emerson's The Nice was the first group to use a Moog synthesizer..." and Mark Brend, in his, The Sound of Tomorrow: How Electronic Music Was Smuggled into the Mainstream says this: "In February 1970 The Nice appeared at the Royal Festival Hall in London with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Alongside Emerson's familar Hammomnd was Vickers' moog ..." There's quite a bit of detail in that last source. Maybe the article needs a little adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Naz[edit]

I don't buy the story that the band's name came from mishearing P.P. Arnold saying "Here comes the Naz". P.P. Arnold toured for a year with the Small Faces, who recorded a song called "Here Comes the Nice". She recorded on the Immediate label, as did the Small Faces. She certainly knew the song - she sang it. And The Nice were formed as her backing band. It strains belief that the Small Faces song would not be the source of the name. And why did Arnold say "Here comes the naz"? What was the naz?

The claim is cited to a book that I don't have access to. It may be in that book, which is from 2002 - 30 years later. Perhaps it was confabulated by someone? MrDemeanour (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - should have read the rest of the talk page, where User:Ghmyrtle says it was a line from a stand-up gag by Lord Buckley, and that "The Naz" was a reference to Jesus. In the article on Lord Buckley it says: 'His most significant tracks are retelling of historical or legendary events, like "My Own Railroad" and "The Nazz".'
But it seems Lord Buckley long predates the events in this article - he died in 1960. So I would love to see some independent confirmation of this claim. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here [1] is a clip of Lord Buckley performing "The Nazz". Good luck with decoding that - I couldn't understand a word. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes (or not)[edit]

@Ritchie333: Hello! About this, a couple of things. (1) It's unclear from the text what "his abuse of the instrument" means. I was guessing that someone who doesn't like this music had vandalized the page. But your explanation in your recent edit summary explains it nicely. Maybe that text should be added to that part of the lead. (2) Emerson "decided to split the band" is ambiguous. It was his decision to leave the band, right? Or, was it his decision to split the band into to two different bands? It's unclear, in my opinion. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely Emerson's choice to split the band, as mentioned in the "Reduction to a three-piece" section; there's certainly no evidence he would have been replaced, and even when the other two did with Patrick Moraz, they used a different name. "Musical style" mentions "He manhandled his Hammond L-100 organ, wrestling it and attacking it with daggers (which he used to hold down keys and sustain notes during these escapades)". Another trick (though not one I can find a reliable source for right now) is - get an L100, rock it back and forth, and then quickly turn the "reverb" switch on and off in time. Or, get a drumstick with reverb turned up and bash the reverb strings to get a rather unusual sound. You just can't do that on a Lowery (can you, Martin?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must mean one of these. Even harder on one of these: [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have a stop for blowing a raspberry? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Personally, I'd always favour a "flatulent "splat" sound reminiscent of a whoopee cushion." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
How about this, then? — Mudwater (Talk) 21:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Quite ambitious. Looks fair, but I think we'd also have to have it (sourced) in the main body too? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: I copied and pasted most of that from Ritchie333's edit summary here. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we'd better ask him if he's got any good sources! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members[edit]

User:Ritchie333 in the Members section timeline it showed P. P. Arnold as being in the band. There is no evidence for that in the article or on her page. That seems to be sufficient reason for adding the hatnote [3] without going further into detail of dates etc in the timeline. There was no source for Dave Kilminster being a member of the band at any time either, just a guest.SovalValtos (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there is no evidence for The Nice being P. P. Arnold's backing band and forming as a result of that? If you want a source you could try here, here, here or here, and that's about ten seconds of searching on Google Books. Now I don't mean to be rude, but it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ritchie333 I said that there was no evidence for her being in the band. Sure they backed her, no question. Plenty of singers get backed by orchestras , bands or groups but it does not mean for that reason they become a member.SovalValtos (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Nice&oldid=1207214013"