User talk:EddieHugh

Archives

2012–13 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

On 20 April 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ahmad Jamal, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if Brenda from Bristol is something you're familiar with, but I did read your joke in that way. I figured

I'm like Brenda at times, but did she ever have the opportunity to expand on her initial comment? EddieHugh (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EddieHugh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BIOG/A. That's not the right project, but the criteria are general and a lot of projects don't have any criteria specified. I'm fine with it being C if you believe it is. EddieHugh (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I just liked leaving the original article reviewers' opinions in place. Misplaced pride of ownership, perhaps. Thank you for your understanding and full explanation, I appreciate it. I also appreciate the extensive work that you've done in related areas. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EddieHugh, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read
  the tutorial
  before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the
  HERE
  .
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's
  discussion board
  .
• Cheers, and hope to see you around — ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 23:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eddie. I came back for a spell to do a little work, to see what's changed (if anything), and so on. Same old problems, eh? Drop me a line if you like. I'm sorry to say that last week I got rid of my Big Band books because I needed the space here at home and I had no need for those books. I kept all the guitar ones and some others. I don't listen to jazz much, though I did listen to Metheny last week and, in two different restaurants this month, I heard "Almost Like Being in Love." Ah, yes, a fine song. I remember you as the brightest star in the Jazz Project. I wish I had your patience. I hope I have learned some in my absence—and some other things as well about treating people better. You are, as always, welcome in America any time. I feel lucky to alive. Peace~ Vmavanti (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky to be alive... well, it's a good start. I do occasionally check if you're around, although I'm also less active here than I used to be. There are a few newish people around working on jazz, including on discographies, but the scale is small, as before. Books can pile up, and unread books can pile up even more; a lot of mine are now in digital form. Speaking of which, I got some digital copies of DownBeat from decades ago, so I should return to adding reviews from them to album articles here. EddieHugh (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cleanup Listing out today lists "pages with broken anchors." Do you know what this is? Vmavanti (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it refers to the hyperlink and associated text – see HTML_element#Anchor. EddieHugh (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like my old grumpy self, I'm not a fan of this discography and not just because it's a table (though that's a lot of it). I find it confusing to read. I don't know why someone bothered to "improve" it. See my comments: [1]Vmavanti (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's messy. Splitting the 'leader' and other would help. EddieHugh (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've always left them to other people, so don't know. I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Short description; it might be possible to get a bot to run through the pages that you've edited (or a defined list), restoring any short descriptions that you removed. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

TlonicChronic (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I assumed there was a requirement of sorts to include the release year in parentheses when an album was mentioned. But I agree with you, in such cases as this one, there's no need for the release year. The year was posted to Discogs, but I think there is doubt about the reliability of that source. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is "generally unreliable":

WP:DISCOGS. In biographical articles, I rarely see a need to state when a recording was released; when it was recorded is what matters (the musicians often have no control over when something is released). I sometimes mention the release year if it was much later than the recording. EddieHugh (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, that makes sense. I'd been looking for the link to that list of sources and their regard by the community. Thank you. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added it because you had used it! It's best to have both for accuracy in this case, but I don't care which is first. EddieHugh (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ty!

TlonicChronic (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Eddie I saw your comment on that and I reverted it, so I'll explain here. Maybe there's a better way to phrase this, but per the source, Powell was recorded on tape by his father playing bebop-like lines between 1934 and 1939, on "Tea for Two" and "How High the Moon." Specifically, this is when he developed the left-hand approach that was notable for contrasting with the prevalent stride style that was popular at the time. Paudras, who notes having heard the private tape records, claims something along the lines of the music being comparable to early bebop. He then quotes Kenny Clarke, who contributes further to this argument. Let me know if you want further clarification. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked in the AAJ source and don't see anything supporting "Powell developed many of the characteristics of bebop during the 1930s". It has "Powell is credited with creating the modern piano style of single-note right hand runs and left-handed chordal punctuation", but that's not bebop. I see that the body of the Powell article contains "he had already developed his characteristic right-hand-focused approach to piano by that point", but, again, that's not bebop, it's an approach to playing the piano. Even after Alan W's edit, I think that further re-wording is required, to stress that it's an approach to the piano that's being described, not the formation of a musical style (that doesn't require a piano!). EddieHugh (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's a citation issue. The comment "his attacking, right-handed approach to the piano" is attributed to All About Jazz, but the beginning of the sentence discussing the 1930s and bebop should cite Dance of the Infidels, which covers this information in detail. That's on me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on what I just commented, I've added a citation pointing to the source. Paudras cites a list of tunes on the tape recordings and then notes, "I was stunned to hear how the pulse and syncopation were already sketching in the structures that would one day be called bebop." --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"during the 1930s, developed many of the characteristics that would prevail in bebop" is an extraordinary claim for someone who was 15 at the end of the 1930s. "developed" is particularly problematic, as it can be read as saying that what Powell did before the age of 16 fed directly into bebop without assistance. I don't think it's justified by anything you've mentioned here (I don't think I have the book). Paudras was a promoter of Powell who talked him up (with justification a lot of the time). If there are lots of others saying that Powell "developed many of the characteristics that would prevail in bebop" in the 1930s, then ok, but I'd like to see them. EddieHugh (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly attached that word or that wording overall. I couldn't think of another way to phrase it, but if you have another way to word it, I'm open to that.

My interpretation of the text — it's on Internet Archive — is that Powell developed, as in formed, his own approach not because he was setting out to change the future of music, rather he personally developed the style or approach as soon as he started to play. I have seen no texts that offer any alternative perspective except an interview with Thelonious Monk where he basically says "I developed everything" and refuses to elaborate; this directly contrasts with every other source I've come across regarding the early 40's. I would like to see another reliable source on Powell's early years prior to 1940, but the closest we come to that is probably the quote from Kenny Clarke in Paudras' book. Interviews with William Powell, Sr., who is of course biased but also extremely knowledgeable about the period, discusses his son's early life to some length in the book.

I don't mind altering the phrase, but I think removing it entirely would do a disservice to the accuracy of the article, as it is very important to the development of bebop that the stride approach was already being challenged in 1939 at the latest, before Parker, Gillespie, or Monk were on the musical scene. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we move this line of text out of the lede entirely and place it in the "early life" section in a modified form. After all, the lede is only intended to be a summary of key parts of his life. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]