Talk:Monster Mash

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles Holidays: Halloween This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Halloween task force.

Is Mark Fiore's parody [1] notable? JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines? Are there any guidelines mandating that a song must have been released as a single by a performer or group before it can be put in the category X songs? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:CAT. Categories are for defining characteristics of the topic, and articles should be categorized by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article. In other words, just because the article says the Smashing Pumpkins covered "Monster Mash" on a live album, doesn't make "Monster Mash" a Smashing Pumpkins song. The only reason it's categorized as a Misfits song is becasue the Misfits recorded and released their own version as a single, a stand-alone release that's part of their discography, and thus the category is necessary to make the article appear within the category of their other releases. Should every song the Smashing Pumpkins have ever covered be categorized as a Smashing Pumpkins song? Of course not, that's ludicrous. Only those if they released their own version as a single would it be appropriate to categorize it under "Smashing Pumpkins songs", in order for the single to show up in the category with their other releases. If we categorized by all the different artists that have covered this song, then we would have about 14 artist-specific categories just for this song. And if we did this for every song article, then categorization by artist would become entirely useless. The fact that the Smashing Pumpkins covered "Monster Mash" live is not a defining characteristic of the song. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry I had forgotten that I posted here and it was rude of me to re-add that category without responding to your thoughtful post. There are several song articles that have "X songs" as an added category without the artist having released the song as a single. This criterion is not mentioned on

WP:CAT, nor do I see it at Category:Songs by artist. Since the band did record and release the song—although not as a single—that seems sufficient for me and such is the case for several articles. For one of many examples, Boys (The Shirelles song) is in Category:The Beatles songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Whoever wrote that is awfully silly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.6.220 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see that this particular snippet of information has been supported by a citation, it seems highly likely that this is indeed a Halloween favorite. Or perhaps you are thinking that "holiday" is exclusively reversed for the Thankgiving-Christmas period, which often is referred to as "the holidays"? Or are you perhaps British, and equate holiday with vacation, which would indeed be silly i connection with this song. Wschart (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the article or right here, about the Monster Mac from Mcdonalds: "*McDonald's "Monster Mac", a combination of this song and Big Mac was served during the Halloween Season in the mid to late 1990s. Its commercial used this song." Pumpie (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dim recollection (could be wrong) that there was a legal dispute over the words in this song with Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, who did a cover of Monster Mash on the BBC UK television show Do Not Adjust Your Set and later on their album Tadpoles. The outcome of the dispute was that Bonzo Dog changed the lyrics from

The scene was rockin', all were digging the sounds

Igor on chains, backed by his baying hounds

The coffin-bangers were about to arrive

With their vocal group, "The Crypt-Kicker Five"

to

The scene was rockin', all were digging the sounds

Igor on chains, backed by his baying hounds

The coffin-bangers were about to arrive

With their vocal group, "The Brain Surgeon Five".

the Crypt-Kickers being the name of the group that originally released the song. Can anyone confirm that the Crypt-Kickers got into a dispute with Bonzo Dog over this? Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Misfits version get a large section while all the other covers get a single line? Is it notable in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I took the time to write about it and find references. The same could be done for most other versions, to say nothing of expanding the sections on the original. This is not an

undue weight issue: Undue weight has to do with viewpoints and the prominence given to minority views, not with information that is neither opinion nor minority viewpoint. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was also surprised at the prominence given to this (relatively obscure) cover version. The section is well written and referenced, but the overall balance and perspective of the article is wrong. This is no reflection on the Misfits version, which I'm sure is very good, culturally significant etc. --Ef80 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is not the level of coverage given that version, it's the lack of coverage given to the original. The sections on the original and some of the more notable covers need to be beefed up. The perception of imbalance is due to the Misfits version—which used to be a separate article—being merged into this article at a time when this article was barely start-class (and it hasn't much improved since then). When a well-written article is merged into a rather poor one (no offense to any editors), of course the article is going to appear imbalanced in favor of the merged content. But what needs to be done is to improve the original content, not criticize the new. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of that history, which explains a lot. Assuming that the Misfits version is

notable, perhaps the decision to merge was a mistake. I'm not advocating demerger though. --Ef80 (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I support a demerger. What was the reason for merging it in the first place? Portillo (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a merger. I had some sources to write a decent chunk about the Misfits version, so I did. The problem here is that there's not enough coverage of the original, not that there's too much coverage of the Misfits version. This is a very notable rock & roll song, and there are only a few short paragraphs discussing the original version, much of it unsourced. The coverage of the original needs to be beefed up, then the perception of undue weight will go away. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If every cover version gets the same lengthy treatment as IllaZilla suggests, a printout of this article will fill the Louvre. The Misfits version is no more notable than any other version - in fact there is ZERO mention of it on the Misfits page, other than the singles box at the bottom. A single paragraph here would suffice, with a link back to more info on the Misfits page. After all, Misfits fans (such as the author) are probably the only ones who care about the Misfits version. "I took time to write something and add references" does not make this the right place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.128.183 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Wikipedia warning "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (May 2019)" I believe the topic of removing and/or condensing the extended Misfits section should be discussed again. Trina the Blobfish (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." Jimmy Wales himself, explaining why the Misfits minutiae should go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:8006:4570:D587:8507:9F10:4E82 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what "

original research" means. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

User:68.188.68.66 appears to have replaced a variety of instances of "Misfits Records" with "Misfits.com Records", breaking several wiki-links in the process. I have rolled back these edits wholesale. - Fennec 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karloff is reputed to have liked the song. In fact, he did a version of it on the the old ABC "Shindig!" variety show in October 1965 (though the footage is supposedly lost, there are audio recordings of the event -- which include Ted Cassidy in his "Lurch" role from The Addams Family -- online).

So, what about including him in the "Cover versions" section ?

Just a thought. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back an edit that deleted a majority of the cover versions. While I think we can clean up that section, it was a seemingly arbitrary edit to only include two versions as "Notable". I believe we should discuss this before further deleting. Particularly with the extended section on the Misfits, it is a strange edit to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trina the Blobfish (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My removal was probably too lenient. The guideline about cover songs may be seen at

WP:SONGCOVER. The guideline requires the cover version to have "gained attention in their own right" in published sources. Certainly the Allstar Weekend remix was highlighted in Tiger Beat,[2] but the Bonzo Dog version is only mentioned in passing.[3] All the other entries are missing a citation to a publication proving that the version was noticed. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Darlene Love's memory is faulty, it's generally agreed she performed on Lon Chaney Jr version issued on Capitol Records. Bobby Pickett told me personally that Rickie Page was the Crypt-Kickers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.248.145 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am Stuart Hersh.

I was the manager of Bobby “Boris” Pickett for 18 years up until his death in 2007.

I do not know how to use Wikipedia.

But I would like to change some incorrect and off color/nothing but self promotion information…

Darlene Love continues to claim that she/The Blossoms were the background singers on Monster Mash. Both Bobby and Producer Gary S. Paxton have stated exactly who the studio singers were that day. In Bobby’s 2005 book entitled “Monster Mash - Half Dead in Hollywood” Bobby “Boris” Pickett writes: “I went into the booth, put on the headphones and listened in astonishment to the entire track, including sound effects and background vocals, which were sung by Gary Paxton, his writing partner, Johnny McCrae and Ms. Rickie Paige. In her book, singer Darlene Love claims to have sung background vocals on Monster Mash. In all honesty, I don’t recall meeting her at that session. Hey Darlene, get in touch and let me know just the facts, ma’am”

The guy listed at the end about doing a musical based on Bobby’s later years is completely lying unless during those years in which Bobby was alive not one single person ever told us about it. Bobby was alive and very active still performing and doing TV appearances in 2004 the supposed year of this fictitious play. There is no way that this ever happened without our knowledge.

The bit about the comic doing the podcast character that sings a version of Monster Mash is absolutely irrelevant to a Monster Mash information page and obviously posted more to promote the comic/podcast

There is no External Links section to post a link to Bobby “Boris” Pickett’s Official Monster Mash Website or some great very informative articles.

Thank you for your consideration.

P.S. Another nice Monster Mash fact is that last year The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame did their first ever Halloween exhibit and promptly featured Bobby “Boris” Pickett’s stage worn Monster Mash lab coat.

If you need to reach me please contact me thru the official Monster Mash website www.themonstermash.com where my name, number and email are prominently displayed.

Stuart Hersh MonsterMashter (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]