Talk:The Yardbirds discography

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

Discographies This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles

Unlike most discographies, this page combines the myriad compilations with the studio albums. A dedicated fan would do this page a service by separating them out so passers by like me could see what studio albums this group has produced. Mseanbrown (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I cleaned it up a little. The main Album section included numerous compilations, while the Compilation section included the band's first 2 albums. (Even though those first 2 albums were a hodge-podge of various sources, they should not be considered "compilations" in the traditional sense.) The discography is still far from complete, though. And what's up with all the Canadian LPs? They should not be given their own entries -- they should just be listed alongside their US/UK counterparts. But I'll leave that for someone else to fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.178.109 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Although in a strict sense they are compilations, For Your Love and Having a Rave Up have unique material that make them important albums in their own right. Both albums contain well-known songs that for years were not available elsewhere ("Train Kept A-Rollin'") or were only available as import singles ("I'm a Man" in UK, "You're a Better Man Than I" in US). Additionally, they were the only album sources (for US and UK) for most singles released prior to Roger the Engineer (approximately 14 songs, including "For Your Love", "Heart Full of Soul", etc.) until they were later collected on "Best of" albums. Propose to include these as "Albums" rather than "Compilations", with appropriate notes. Ojorojo (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is information about 2 compilation albums from my collection that are not included in your discography:

THE YARDBIRDS Featuring Performances By: Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page. EPIC Stereo EG3015 2 LP set released 10/1970 according to the May 1971 Schwann Record and Tape Guide. Side 1: DRINING MUDDY WATER (2:50), HOT HOUSE OF OMAGARASHID (2:37), I WISH YOU WOULD (2:18), THE TRAIN KEPT A-ROLLIN (3:26), SMILE ON ME (3:17). Side 2: JEFF'S BOOGIE (2:25), I AIN'T GOT YOU (2:00), WHAT DO YOU WANT (3:24), WHITE SUMMER (3:49), GOT TO HURRY (2:26). Side 3: LITTLE GAMES (2:25), LOST WOMAN (3:13), ONLY THE BLACK ROSE (2:48), FAREWELL (1:29), I AIN'T DONE WRONG (3:39). Side 4: A CERTAIN GIRL (2:17), EVER SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN (2:03), TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SAILOR (2:41), TURN INTO EARTH (3:05), HERE 'TIS 95:04).

SHAPES OF THINGS (A Collection of classic Yardbirds recordings 1964-66), 2 LPs, BOMB 104.5 (1977, notes by Chris Welch, Melody Maker 1977. Clear vinyl.) (Manufactured and Distributed by P.J. Imports, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from Charly Music Ltd., London, England) Side One: Introduction: Hamish Grimes, 1 Too Much Monkey Business, 2 I Wish You Would, 3 Good Morning Little School Girl, 4 For Your Love, 5 A Certain Girl, 6 Got To Hurry. Side Two: 1 Smokestack Lightning, 2 Evil Hearted You, 3 Still I'm Sad. 4 Steeled Blues, 5 Train Kept A Rolling, 6 Here 'Tis. Side Three: 1 What do You Want, 2 New York City Blues, 3 For R.S.G., 4 Mr. You're A Better Man Than I, 5 Jeff's Blues 6 I Ain't Got You. Side Four: 1 I Ain't Done Wrong, 2 Someone To Love Part One, 6 Someone To Love Part Two, 4 My Gal Sloopy, 5 Shapes of Things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.173.68 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have Over Under Sideways Down and Blow-Up been removed? Both are listed in the Yardbirds' published discographies (Clayson, Russo) and career retrospective CD (Ultimate!). The Beatles discography and The Rolling Stones discography both include separate listings for UK and US albums which have different names, cover art, and/or overlapping track listings. Why should the Yardbirds be treated differently? For years, Blow-Up was the only non-bootleg source for "Stroll On" (until Gomelsky's box sets came out about 25 years later). The Beatles discography includes Yellow Submarine (6 Beatles songs out of 13). If it is recorded by the group and not released elsewhere it belongs in their discography. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on this subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#Deleting releases from discography articles. Piriczki (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why my change (of combining the two era's albums) was reverted. I don't think it makes any sense to separate the two eras of the band. Technically they are both "The Yardbirds." For example, Birdland is just as much a Yardbirds album as For Your Love is. I haven't seen the discography of any other band on Wikipedia separate the albums recorded before and after a band reforms. Combining the two eras of the band keeps this article more consistent with other bands' articles. All of the important information (chart position, comments, etc.) was kept intact when I merged the eras.--Sk8punk3d288 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason – after the group broke up in 1968, their catalogue was (and still is) subject to a good deal of exploitation. The 1963–1968 releases represent material that they (or their management) had some say over.

WP:Featured list only includes his releases prior to 1970 (Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography has the rest). Elmore James discography (also a FL) also is split between career and posthumous releases. There is a good reason for this – sometimes unscrupulous producers are too eager to churn out product, which often only serves to dilute the artist's legacy. BTW, a review of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle may be beneficial – you were bold, I reverted, you started to discuss, but also reverted, which is not part of the process. I don't want an edit war, but your actions (without edit summaries) don't show a willingness to reach a consensus. —Ojorojo (talk

)

Actually, yes, McCarty and Dreja (+ the rest of the band) and now McCarty (+ the rest of the band) are technically the Yardbirds. The band's own Wikipedia page says so as does their official website and every venue that has booked the band since 1992. Saying that the reformed version of the band is not the band is an opinion (see: neutral point of view), one typically held by some hardcore fans of the group.--Sk8punk3d288 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, which is why they are included in the discography. However, biographers and other WP:Reliable sources only mention them in passing or almost as a footnote. For example, Unterberger only mentions them in one sentence at the end of a long group biography: "Thirty-five years after their break up in 1968, original members Chris Dreja and Jim McCarty pulled together a slew of new musicians to record a new album under the Yardbirds moniker, titled Birdland, and followed it with a tour of the United States." If they are indeed seen on the same level as the 1963–1968 group, this would be reflected in the group's bios, etc. I don't understand why splitting up the original releases from the later ones is an issue. It provides more focus on singles, albums, etc., which made them an important part of 1960s rock and still acknowledges the current configuration. —Ojorojo (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will concede that I see where you are coming from in that the group, and its releases, are more well known from its original 1963-1968 run. However, the modern post 1992 version of the band is still technically the Yardbirds (as you stated). Putting all of the studio and live albums from the group during both time periods makes more practical sense. The band only released two official live albums and one official compilation during its original run. They only released a single studio album since reforming. I don't think it makes sense to put these two live albums in their own entire table in a single section and the lone post 1992 studio album in its own table when they can all be put together in single tables in the sections for which type of albums they are. I think the page is much easier to follow and looks a lot better the way it is currently.--209.211.71.2 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it practical? The post-1999 Yardbirds is a revolving door of musicians with now only McCarty from the original line-up. Their albums (which probably don't meet

WP:NALBUM) are mostly made up of re-recorded or live recordings of their original material. There is little (except the name) to tie them to the past. If Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman somehow acquired the name, could they carry on as the Rolling Stones with constantly changing unknown stand-ins? Nobody would buy it. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I still don't see the recent edits as an improvement. The newly created

WP:PERMASTUB). These post-1999 line-up albums have been included, but do not warrant a change in the discography layout, which has been in place since 2009. The recent edits also removed referenced material and introduced format problems by adding/removing columns. I am restoring the earlier discography (with some updates), that shouldn't have been reverted pending the outcome of a discussion. If you want to open a RfC on this, go ahead. Meanwhile the discography should remain in its stable (7+ years) state. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]