Talk:American Beauty (album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen ^Talk 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple chorus

A question for the deadheads at wikipedia. The article says that the chorus for "Ripple" is a haiku. Is there some documentation for this? gK 01:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The chorus is

Ripple in still water

Where there is no pebble tossed

Nor wind to blow

Depends on the definition of haiku, I guess, which strictly speaking has a 5-7-5 syllable pattern, but apparently by some definitions this counts.DianaW 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be more regular in my haiku but that's because I don't have the confidence of genius. If Robert Hunter was trying for haiku he succeeded. If he wasn't, he still succeeded. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual songs

It seems that it might be easier to move this information to articles on the individual songs (or maybe an article such as "The songs on American Beauty"). Any thoughts? -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden tracks on the 2003 re-issue

I have The Golden Road (1965-1973) box beside me. The contained "American Beauty" has two hidden tracks, the first being another "Ripple"-track and the second a WB radio commercial for the album. Oddly both tracks are not mentioned anywhere (not on the disc, the sleeve, the booklet, the back cover or the booklet of the box. See also American Beauty on musicbrainz.org. 141.84.25.58 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box of Rain

Box of Rain, Box of rain. Note the difference. Zazaban 03:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subsection title

"Dual Disc additions" Should these be editions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.144 (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Kingdom

I propose removing the statement that the album cover says "Devil's Kingdom" when viewed upside down in a mirror, and also removing the upside down and reversed album cover image. It doesn't say that, although I can see the vague resemblance. The "American Reality" ambigram is for real, but not "Devil's Kingdom". — Mudwater^(Talk) 07:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost three weeks and no one has said anything about this. I'm going to remove the material in question. — Mudwater^(Talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed this again. First, it's uncited and therefore not suitable for inclusion. Second, it's untrue. I've owned this album on vinyl, CD and cassette for over 25 years and I've checked all 3 versions... anyone ho is seeing "Devil's Kingdom" when looking at the lettering upside-down and in a mirror (or any other way) is either way too high or the type of person who hears backmasked messages in AC/DC albums. Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different track lengths on the DVD-A

(I hope I am doing this correctly). The DVD-A release has (in some instances) substantially different versions of the songs. Mickey Hart explains on the disc that he put material back in that was edited for reasons of the runtime constraints of LP sides. --Mgnagy (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalists?

I sure would like to know who sang on each song, lead and harmony; or two-part: (Truckin'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:1470:7884:9BEA:AE08:FF33 (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

User:Disc Wheel, I've answered on my talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American Beauty (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start Class

Y A reasonably complete infobox
Y A lead section giving an overview of the album
Y A track listing
Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year

C Class

Y All the start class criteria
Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.

B Class

Y All the C class criteria
Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
N No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS

The Composition section needs cleaning and the rest needs sources to make it a B! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Beauty (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210030146/http://timepieces.nl/Top100%27s/2007NARM.html to http://www.timepieces.nl/Top100%27s/2007NARM.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Beauty (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References/Verifiability

I just reverted a recent anonymous change that did not provide a reference, but I listed the link incorrectly; it should be WP:Verifiability. Some people may think I'm being too picky about an article about a hippie band, but allowing unreferenced material to be added is a slippery slope that can easily turn articles into trash. The Grateful Dead are quite well documented, so if The Band is a known influence it should be easy to find a reference confirming this. Printed materials are preferred, but a decent, objective web site is acceptable (see WP:References).

About once a month I have to revert changes to geology articles that have been changed from "X happened 150 million years ago" to "X happened 4000 years ago", because the contributor believes that this is obvious, established information. But you can't even find a citation in the Bible backing it up:-). Finney1234 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you’re being picky, just amazingly inconsistent. Where’s the documentation that Dylan and Crosby Stills and Nash are an influence, or for that matter, that the album focused on folk harmonies or major melodies? You believe the removal of two words from an unreferenced paragraph is somehow an improvement but don’t bother to put up a “citation needed” tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b117:285e:dda1:5337:accd:e940 () 02:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSNY is documented and referenced in a later section of this article. Just from observation of Wikipedia articles, it appears as if omitting references/footnotes in an article's Introduction might be acceptable *if the information is referenced later* (as with CSNY), but I haven't tried to look this up in the Wikipedia documentation. Other material in the article (e.g., the Dylan mention) might need references, but I'm not prepared to do an overhaul. However, I now have notifications on this article, so I *am* willing to try and make sure new changes meet Wikpedia criteria. So find a reference about The Band, and add it back in to make the article better!

Would you object if I added a comment about how the album was influenced by the Ohio Express? Why or why not? –Finney1234 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hadn't thought about or considered a "Citation Needed" tag; that's a valid point, and might be worth doing for the article as a whole. But each (volunteer) Wikipedia editor works on what they choose to work on. Feel free to add that tag to the article. Finney1234 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Finney1234: The guideline you refer to is at WP:WHENNOTCITE, where it says, "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article... " — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: Thanks for the reference. I'll have to look more at your talk page and contributions; you've obviously done some fun stuff.Finney1234 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would I object if you said the Dead was influenced by the Ohio Express? No, but I wouldn’t believe it, either. Dylan, for example, I would believe, because the Dead covered his songs. See the difference? 2600:1002:B123:3FD5:E93F:35BD:6D6B:397F (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead also repeatedly played "Beer Barrel Polka". Wow, another importance influence on the Dead that apparently needs to be added to the article! See the similarity?

The issue isn't "believability" (the earth is flat! just look at it); the issue is WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Check out the Wikipedia documentation; it is the basis for Wikipedia's fairly high reliability. Finney1234 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I see is you grasping at straws in an effort to make a valid analogy. Furthermore, your attempt to claim I am stating “believability” is some kind of standard for inclusion is one of the most pathetic straw men I’ve ever encountered. Yes verifiability is an issue, as is your inconsistency in adhering to that standard. The whole point, which you are now are trying to avoid because it’s indefensible, is that you removed some material and not other IN THE SAME SENTENCE when none of it was cited. Such arbitrary editing does nothing to maintain Wikipedia’s fairly high level of reliability 2600:1002:B1C1:D596:B428:65E7:89C7:9182 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Current Edit War

This section is for discussion of the current edit war about track listing style; I am hoping that some sort of consensus from multiple editors will help resolve this. Some relevant Wikipedia references are WP:ALBUMSTYLE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ENGVAR, and WP:CITEVAR. Finney1234 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my argument for what I have done.

If you look at every Studio Album page within the Grateful Dead discography page, they all follow this format

No.	Title	Length

for the Track listing section except for the "American Beauty" page. So all I did was make it look just like the rest of the pages when I added the info for the live material issued with the 50th Anniversary release of "American Beauty".

Back in the spring of 2020, the home office released the 50th Anniversary for the album "Workingman's Dead". I went in and added the additional live material issued with that release and changed the format from the "classic" style to the Track listing format when I did this and not one individual complained. I go and do this to the "American Beauty" page and someone gets offended. When I query them about why all the other pages follow the Track listing format, all I got for a response was "I don't know". No defence of the "established" style by this individual. So when I see the "established" style to be that of the Track listing format found on every other Studio Album page within the discography page, that's what I created with the "American Beauty" page. --Spoondivy (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spoondivy That's actually quite a rational explanation; much more convincing that the "don't tell me what I can or can't do" in the comment attached to the change. Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant and exactly why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists. Another option is to change the style of every other page. There is no requirement for consistency on track listing styles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koavf WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is both long, and is an essay with opinions, not policy. Can you point to the part of it that you think is relevant to the discussion? Consistency within the range of Dead albums seems useful, although not necessary. On what basis did you feel the Track listing style change needed to be reverted? Was there any basis beyond personal preference, and a desire not to alter the existing format? (Obviously, the style *within* the American Beauty article should be consistent). Finney1234 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finney1234, The relevant part is, "Something else is like [x], therefore this should be like [x]" is not a valid line of reasoning: it's an irrelevant distraction. The track listing style should stay the same per WP:ALBUMSTYLE: there are several valid styles and changing one based on personal preference is no excuse to contradict MOS:VAR. There are semantic and stylistic reasons to prefer a list versus a table: namely, this is a list and not tabular data. I agree that the styles should be consistent across the encyclopedia with all instances of {{track listing}} removed but there is no consensus for that, so instead, we have three distinct methods which are all acceptable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WP:CITEVAR is relevant here (re: established article style). On the other hand, changing the style is acceptable with consensus. I personally think that matching the Dead album track listing styles is worth doing, even though it is not required (every studio album will be getting a track update on the 50th Anniversary release, and User:Spoondivy is making the necessary changes). But I suspect WP:CONSENSUS ain't gonna get reached :-).Finney1234 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, folks. Here's what I think. Usually numbered lists are best for track listings. They're easier to read, and easier to edit. When things get complicated, a track listing template or a table might sometimes be better, but otherwise a numbered list is usually better. That's my preference, and it's also what it says at the WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Track listing guideline. For this article, things are pretty straightforward, which suggests the use of a numbered list. But, since the other articles for the previous Grateful Dead album 50th anniversary editions all use track listing templates, I think in this case it's preferable to use a track listing template, for consistency. For me it's not super cut and dried, and I actually think it'd be okay either way, but I'd say let's go with the track listing template here. Another thing: I think this isn't worth getting into a heated argument over. Let's try to work together, in a spirit of friendly (or at least polite) collaboration, even if we don't all agree. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

"Something else is like [x], therefore this should be like [x]" is not a valid line of reasoning: it's an irrelevant distraction.

I call you on that. Consistency dictates that "Something else is like [x], therefore this should be like [x]" if any group of pages on this site all relate to the same mode of idea or style. It is a perfectly good and valid line of reasoning. An irrelevant distraction is purely an opinion and is not a valid argument. So my point stands. Consistency across all Studio Album pages dictates that my changes were valid and reasonable.--Spoondivy (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spoondivy, Why only studio albums? Why not change to actual numbered lists on all of them? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is outside the scope of my current argument. All I'm discussing is the Studio Album section of the discography page for the Grateful Dead. Like I previously mentioned, I went in and redid the Workingman's Dead page and NOBODY said a word. And it has stayed that way since my edit. There are exactly 22 Studio Albums in that section and of those 22, 90% ("Without A Net" being the only other page that follows the "Current Style") follow this style ->

No.	Title	Length

Yes it'd be great if Wikipedia had designated only one style for this type of list, but they didn't, and because they didn't other styles exist and are used on this site. Again all I'm arguing for is consistency across the section of pages, nothing more nothing less. I'm not changing it for personal preferences, I'm following what has been established as the prominent style used for the Track Listing segment of the page throughout the Studio Album section of the discography page for the Grateful Dead.

Now Mr. Mudwater...there is no heated argument, if I wanted a heated argument I tell Mr. Justin (koavf) to meet me at the corner of thirty-third and third and we can discuss this face to face. YA RIGHT. Words on the screen convey nothing but that, words on a screen. But what I have seen on this discussion topic is that Mr. Finney1234 doesn't see a problem with my edit, you have indicated that you aren't opposed to my edit, and with me added that makes 3 to 1 in favor of the change. Now does it stay? A judgement needs to be rendered here.--Spoondivy (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spoondivy, Why are you arbitrarily choosing some albums? Why not just those released on a certain record label or in a particular decade? You seem to have not read MOS:VAR, so I will wait until you show some comprehension of it or any of the numerous policy pages and guidelines you have been pointed to. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How am I "arbitrarily choosing some albums" when I have plainly stated multiple times that my argument is limited to the Studio Album section of the discography page for the Grateful Dead. What part of this confuses you? You keep trying to take this argument outside of its scope and I will not engage you on that. I have read the numerous policy pages and guidelines and I am NOT arguing against them. My argument is purely about maintaining consistency of the Track Listing style within the Studio Album section of the discography page for the Grateful Dead. And all you do is hide behind policy pages and guidelines when you haven't given me a plausible defense of why maintaining consistency of the Track Listing style within the Studio Album section of the discography page for the Grateful Dead is unwarranted. So SOMEBODY out there in wikipedia land needs to perform their duties of being a impartial arbitrator of this here argument and LET'S BE DONE WITH IT! ― Spoondivy (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spoondivy: Because just choosing studio albums is arbitrarily choosing some albums: your argument is that they should be consistent but why would only their studio albums have one style and all the others have a different one? If you're actually being consistent, you'll change them all to plain lists, as that's what a majority of Grateful Dead album articles use. As I've stated above and repeatedly, I have given you a reason which is that there is already an existing style. Additionally, as I wrote "this is a list and not tabular data". You need to provide a reason to change things but your reason is, "One segment of their discography (but not the rest: no reason why) should be consistent (but to my preferred version, not yours: no reason why)" which is weak and a waste of time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already planned to go and look at this later today (that is, make my own decision about what I think is a preferred format). However, the WP:CITEVAR Wikipedia documentation (which is the basis by which things get resolved: if no one cares then it can be ignored, but otherwise the documentation is the final word) clearly states that the current reference format of an article should not be changed unless there is WP:CONSENSUS. And consensus is *not* a simple majority, although the lack of objection to a change (as, apparently, ocurred with Workingman's Dead) *is* a form of consensus (at least, that's my understanding).

I did revert User:Spoondivy's change once, because it was clearly feeding into an edit war, and because there was no good background at the time defending the change ("Don't tell me what to do!" doesn't count). I consider Spoondivy's post here to have provided some argument worth considering, but I haven't looked yet at the format to see where my personal opinion falls. So I'll chip in later with a somewhat "objective" opinion, but again, WP:CITEVAR is pretty unarguable (please don't deal with the trivia that it deals with "References" and not "Track Listings", I think it's clearly applicable in spirit).

However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS *is* an essay of opinion, and therefore is *not* a guideline which *has* to be followed.

This discussion is in fact typical of the process of achieving (or not achieving) consensus. Welcome to Wikipedia :-) . Finney1234 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that User:Spoondivy has jumped into trying to force their approach again (reverting the most recent change back to their preferred mode, before any consensus was reached), in spite of the explicit violation of cited Wikipedia policy (WP:CITEVAR) (did you actually read this? Or did you just assume that your way was correct no matter what?). It's not a polite or cooperative way to proceed. In this particular case, "consistency" is just User:Spoondivy's personal preference, and is *not* supported by Wikipedia policy (again, see WP:CITEVAR).

And, in fact, as User:Koavf noted, (1) "Dead Studio Albums" is an artificial category, (2) there's actually quite a bit of track listing variation within that category anyway (e.g., how singer/writer are handled), and (3) the variation among track labeling in Dead album articles in general is vast (e.g., live albums are typically formatted differently), so the consistency is fairly meaningless.

The fact that "no one said a word about previous changes" is just happenstance of who's involved and who cares; it's not a form of explicit approval.

I find the actual difference in quality between the options to be fairly trivial but I'll certainly back up User:Koavf if he chooses to pursue it. Finney1234 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finney1234, It appears his account is compromised anyway: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Spoondivy_and_failure_to_be_collaborative, for what it's worth. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]