Talk:Tony Currenti

Notability

Currenti is technically notable as he has been a member of two notable bands, albeit temporarily in the case of AC/DC. The Jesse Fink book carries a fair amount of information about him and his career, if anyone has that book and cares to expand the article. Otherwise I can do it when the book finally gets published in the UK. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet I'm curious about the claim in the lead that Currenti was "rediscovered" by Jesse Fink, I'm not the only one that knew of Current to and the article precedes the book. Seriously? I don't believe this is supported and would be interested in your view. The reference speaks for itself and thats enough in my mind. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Flat Out, rediscovered in a sense that mainly AC/DC diehards knew that he was stated as a drummer on Australian edition of High Voltage album. But then, there were rumours that it was George Young, who played drums on that album etc. And who knew that he recorded High Voltage song? It has been credited to Phil Rudd (the other day I read an article in one drumming magazine and they stated that High Voltage song is a prime example of Phil Rudd's drumming). Plus almost nobody knew of his session work for Vanda & Young. I mean Stevie Wright's Evie or Black Eyed Bruiser, or John Paul Young's singles Yesterday's Hero and I Hate The Music - those all are legendary recordings from the golden era of Australian rock, if you know something about it. It can't be denied that book helped to introduce him to general audience and casual AC/DC fans. Before the book was released, no one gave a damn about Tony. Now he is more popular than ever (similar situation with Stevie Young filling in for Malcolm Young; Who did give a damn about him before it was revealed that he is in the studio with AC/DC? Only diehards). Also, you should take into consideration that no one has interviewed Tony prior to The Youngs book. Plus, the fans crowdfunded to buy him a new set of pro drums as a surprise, because his old Ludwig drum kit was unplayable (Drums were 4000 all up. Australasian Music Supplies in Melbourne kicked in 40 per cent. Fans came up with the rest - sourced all through Facebook). That's my point of view. Currentpeak (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Currentpeak and thanks for your reply. I think you are confusing his recent popularity with who knew what and when. There are two issues in terms of claim made in the lead. 1. whether it belongs in the lead as a key point of the article's sourced content, and 2. whether the source supports the claims and/or is being given undue weight. While it it might be commonly believed Rudd was the drummer, that doesn't necessarily equal the claim that Fink re-discovered Currenti. As far as credits go, sessional musicians are often uncredited for their work. The Fink reference is a good one for supporting Currenti's work and should stand, but the claim made in the lead (in my opinion) is not supported and is not correct. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What I'd say is that the main thrust of the new material is fine and should stay, and all of what Currentpeak has said here is true; but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the "rediscovered" aspect being in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph of a Wikipedia article should basically just describe what the subject is notable for. Tony isn't notable for being in Fink's book. That does belong in the article, but towards the end in a chronological way. It's important that he was interviewed for the book because it finally sheds light on the various "who played on what" questions, but the interview itself and the "rediscovery" is not notable per se – it just clarifies Tony's notability – so I don't think it really belongs in the lead. In fact it almost detracts from it – it might imply to some that Tony wasn't notable before the book came out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I still have to disagree with you. The fact is this: no one sought to interview Tony for a book for 40 years. No Mick Wall, no Murray Engleheart, no Clinton Walker, no Anthony Bozza and the list goes on. All the world knew before then was that Tony Curenti/Curanti/Currant/Kerrante played on the album. Nothing about his life story, about what songs and albums he actually played on, about being asked to join AC/DC. Very few people knew where he was or what his real name was. If there wasn't The Youngs book, who would be talking about Tony now? Tony is notable for being in Fink's book because it's Fink's book that the world knows his story. And bear in mind the fact, that The Youngs book has been released in Australia only so far (last November). It is about to get released in the US & Canada this summer, then the UK, Argentina, Germany & Austria. It will only get bigger. P.S.: I consider myself a diehard fan and I was only aware of Tony Currenti being mentioned on Australian cover of High Voltage album and that he might have recorded a few songs. The Youngs book was a real eye opener for me and I am happy that I was introduced to this fantastic musician, because he is the one (you've got to have a great chops to be a favourite drummer of George Young). It wouldn't happen without Jesse Fink's book. Currentpeak (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is this: Wikipedia has rules of eligibility for every type of article. For musicians, it's here. Tony was previously on the cusp of it in terms of the notability of his career because we weren't aware of all his work. We've always kept this article, but the truth is that had it gone to AfD, it would have been deleted as non-notable because notability was not proven. This article has actually been deleted before for that reason. He was always just about notable under rule 6 – having been a member of two or more notable groups. But it was always a very tenuous thing because he was only a session musician for AC/DC, not an actual member. The 69ers counted as the other group because we vaguely knew about his work with them. That was his notability in Wikipedia terms. What Fink's book does is shed further light on that notability, not directly increase it. It tells us that Tony worked with many other notable musicians, adding to rule 6. So his notability is clearly established, you've expanded the article and deletion is now not going to happen. Fink's book also means that rule 1 is partially satisfied – Tony now has appeared in one "non-trivial, published work". But he isn't notable for being in the book, do you see what I mean? Lots of people are written about in books, but that doesn't mean they're eligible for articles here. Tony's notable but not because he's in Fink's book. The book helps us explain Tony's notability and it's prevented the article being deleted, but the book doesn't create his notability. Tony was always notable because of what he did in the 70s, but it's only now that we really know about it. The book proves notability but it doesn't create it. So that's why it doesn't really belong in the lead paragraph – it should be mentioned, but further down. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What the lead should contain is references to the other artists Tony worked with. It should namecheck Stevie Young (and definitely mention "Evie") and John Paul Young as well. This work makes him notable, not being in Fink's book. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead updated, book mentioned down in the bio section. And you did mean Stevie Wright, not Young I suppose. Currentpeak (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did – sorry, I've got the Youngs on the brain at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)