Talk:In Person Friday and Saturday Nights at the Blackhawk, Complete

Disproportionate amount of space given over to the opinions of Robert D.G. Kelley on the original cover photo

Robert D.G. Kelley's New York Times essay on Miles Davis and what he terms "the pimp aesthetic" is certainly interesting and provocative, but it's also very subjective, and seems out of place in an encyclopedia article. There's plenty of historical evidence that Miles mistreated the women in his life, that he made misogynist comments on the record, and so forth. But there's no evidence that Miles choose the cover image (or if he did, why he choose it), or was aware of the photographer when the image was taken, or that Miles aspired to be seen as a pimp in 1961. All we know is that he was a financially successful jazz musician dating a fashion model and was photographed lighting a cigarette in a San Francisco club with his then-girlfriend in the background of the image. Aside from all the quoted speculation on the cover image, the article has basically nothing to say about the musicians on the album, or why it is considered a classic recording, or how it fits into the evolution of Miles' music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:B400:8814:E020:0:0:0:719 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I'll delete the sentence right now. 122.148.184.131 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of In Person Saturday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 2 into In Person Friday and Saturday Nights at the Blackhawk, Complete

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is much more sense in covering all the discs on the "Complete" article. Draft:In Person Friday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 1 exists and the suggestion is to merge that as well. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll add links here to make this more comprehensive. We have:

· Bootleg Series Vol. 2 (2013) which contains Festiva de Juan Pins (1993)

· Blackhawk, Complete (2003) which contains In Person Friday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 1 (1961) and Volume 2

· The Complete Plugged Nickel (1995) which contains Highlights (1995) and At Plugged Nickel, Chicago, Vols. 1 & 2 (1969)

· The Complete Montreux (2002) which contains Miles & Quincy (1993)

· and the eight "Complete" Miles Davis box sets.

I am of the opinion that the three pages that don't exist should be made, not that the other should be subsumed. However, I think it's inconsistent that the Plugged Nickel highlights, released concurrently with the Complete volume, has it's own page, where three albums released on Columbia when Davis was signed don't have their own pages, but need to be added to the Complete reissue that was released decades later, after his death. TlonicChronic (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit, I see where @TlonicChronic is coming from as the originals were released in 1961, were written about, rated and charted at that time which is not relevant to this article as the re-release has its own charting, reception, etc. However, I think Volumes I and II should be single article as they are written about together and titled "Miles Davis In Person at the Blackhawk" as they were referred to in 1961 (example, example). Pinging @Significa liberdade and @Timtrent. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@S0091 I initiated this because I thought it was correct. Conversations with TlonicChronic made me certain that I was now wholly unsure. I chose to invalidate my review f the draft mentioned in the opening paragraph on the basis of this conversations (I had recommended merger). On the basis that I am now unsure, I wish the nominatio/proposalto merge to read as neutral, and that the discussion shoudl note that I no longer feel competent to offer an opinion in it.

If that means that all current parties agree that this be closed with an action taken I will not object, whether that action be to merge or to achieve something else. Otherwise nonsense is important 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I initially wanted to have them (vols. 1 & 2) as one article, but I had two problems that I didn't know how to resolve. The first is that is isn't a double album, it's two separate volumes; I don't know how big a deal that is—maybe it just need a "are a pair of separate but related albums" or something to that effect. The second was the title. It's hard to find consensus, but the one that was already present on the wiki is the one I went with because it seemed most generally practical. However, with Friday and Saturday so early in the titles, either they would have to be re-titled—perhaps Miles Davis in Person at the Blackhawk or simply kept Miles Davis[:] [I]n Person—which I don't believe I can do myself.TlonicChronic (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@TlonicChronic You can perform a WP:MOVE to change the title. Using Miles Davis in Person at the Blackhawk as an example, perhaps something like this as the lead sentence:

In Person Saturday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 1 and In Person Saturday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 2, together commonly referred to as Miles Davis in Person at the Blackhawk, are live albums by Miles Davis recorded at the Black Hawk nightclub in San Francisco in April 1961 and released by Columbia September that same year.

Then you can go into more specifics. Moving the existing Volume 2 will automatically create a redirect to the new title, then a new redirect can be created for Volume 1 (or move the draft, blank it and make it the redirect to retain the history) along with any other plausible search terms. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me into this, S0091. I can see where everyone is coming from. I just re-reviewed the Vol. 1 draft, and I still think there are some issues with it, especially if we're considering it separate from the Complete album. Primarily, all the reviews I saw on the page (minus Billboard) were for the complete album, even though they looked at Vol. 1. As such, this would signify, to me, that Vol. 1 is not notable individually. Looking at the draft, there were two sources that looked directly at Vol. 1 (Billboard), and I believe one is routine coverage of album releases. The Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings may also give Vol. 1 more attention, but I don't have access to it. Pinging Timtrent and TlonicChronic Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that issues exist with it. If we were to concentrate on the where of it, where it should go assuming acceptance, it becomes easier, then, to deal with the draft's shortfalls.

I no longer feel competent to judge where it should go. I think the proposed merge is no longer a useful outcome, but that des not solve the overall issue. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the one of the editions (maybe 7th-9th) of the penguin guide here with me, if it's of use. I agree the draft has a bunch of problems, it's my first attempt slapping together an article; it definitely need work; I just think having Complete and vols. one and two for Plugged Nickel and Blackhawk merged is improper. Personally, as a listener, I think the Complete volumes for those two in particular supersede the original issues. Once I got Blackhawk, I stopped listening to the other two CDs, and I sure the same will happen with I finally get a copy of the Plugged Nickel sets. TlonicChronic (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

What would you think of bring the Highlights (1995) infobox into The Complete Plugged Nickel (1995), blanking it and linking it, seperating out At Plugged Nickel, Chicago, Vols. 1 & 2 as a merged article, and merging and linking In Person Friday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 1 (1961) and Volume 2? TlonicChronic (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I did my best to combine Volume 1 into Volume 2<nowiki>. Would you be willing to give it a quick look over and tell me if there are things I'm still missing? If this is adequate, we can remove V1, rename v2 and link both. Otherwise we can cream a subpage if you'd prefer, but I'm a noob, so I might need a little guidance.@Significa liberdade: TlonicChronic (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Can someone update the status of this discussion at PAM? Appreciated. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.