Talk:Jeff Beck/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Backwards copy

The Guitar Story: From Ancient to Modern Times by Bob Fetherolf is a word for word copy of some of the contents of this article. The book was published in 2014, while the same wording was in the article in 2011, and slightly different wording containing the same (and more detailed) information was present in 2010 in part sourced to Mo Foster's book Seventeen Watts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've ordered Foster's book so I'll be able to check the details there regarding Beck making his own guitars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin Power's definitive, authorized biography of Beck, Hot Wired: The Life of Jeff Beck, Ominibus Press, New York (2014), is a great resource for improving this article. For editors who don't have a copy of the book, Google Books (the link in this note) has a fairly extensive preview available online to work from. In particular, the Yardbirds years are covered in the preview. Beyond the citations, this wikipage needs a good edit. Hopefully I'll find some time to get into it, and I hope other editors will, too. morganj9000 10:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Spinal Tap

Article states "Beck appears on albums by Rod Stewart, Mick Jagger, Tina Turner, Morrissey, Jon Bon Jovi, Malcolm McLaren, Kate Bush, Roger Waters, Donovan, Stevie Wonder, Les Paul, Zucchero, Cyndi Lauper, Brian May, Stanley Clarke, Screaming Lord Sutch, ZZ Top, and Toots and the Maytals.[3]"

Add Spinal Tap to this list please...see the wikipedia article for the Spinal Tap album "Break Like the Wind" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_Like_the_Wind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.68.216.127 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Autotech By Beck 1930 E Walnut St Pasadena, CA

• https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?SearchType=NUMBER&SearchCriteria=200407800013

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Appears on the G.T.O.'s "Permanent Damage" album.

I knew Jeff performed on the G.T.O.'s album "Permanent Damage" (1969), but did not see that in the article. Jeff and Nicky Hopkins are both on the G.T.O.'s album, and they were probably in the studio building recording the "Beck-ola" album at that time. I found this exact text on the G.T.O.'s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_GTOs  ; and this text was copied word for word from the album cover:

"Notes[edit] The GTOs write all their own lyrics and no subject matter covered by these lyrics was suggested by any outside source. The choice of subjects is a reflection of the girls’ attitudes toward their environment. The GTOs hope you like their album. — Frank Zappa Special thanks to: Jimmy Carl Black, Roy Estrada, Ian Underwood and Craig Doerge who also played on Eureka Springs Garbage Lady, Ooo Ooo Man, Shock Treatment, and Captain’s Fat Teresa Shoes. Also to: Jeff Beck who played guitar on Eureka Springs Garbage Lady, Shock Treatment, and Captain’s Fat Teresa Shoes; Nicky Hopkins who played piano on Shock Treatment; Frank Zappa who played tamborine on Ooo Ooo Man; Don Preston who played on Television Baby; [sic]"<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_GTOs> Carsonchrisw (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Chris CarsonCarsonchrisw (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted Beck's just fooling around on these tracks, not playing seriously, as the songs are all just far-out hippie nonsense, forgettable and amateurish. They are just a historical footnote in the career of Zappa.50.111.18.208 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

All available on YT (and all without any copyright statement). Indeed, I must admit, it's hard to discern any guitar playing at all on "Captain’s Fat Teresa Shoes". Martinevans123 (talk)

Grammy Awards

I just made an edit to itemize each of Beck's Grammy Award nominations and wins. 2010 presented a formatting challenge. I handled it in an "ugly" way -- can someone please improve on how it appears? Maybe a table would work, but I worry that that may be outside my ability. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Spiteful Christgau quotes

Egghead06: I have to agree with the IP who removed this. Christgau is way out of line with his excessively negative attack on Beck. Beck has numerous accolades as one of the best guitarists. One may not care for Beck's style or material, but to describe him as "pathologically spotty", "a technician and nothing more", with nothing meaningful to express (not in quote), "once rendered Rod Stewart unlistenable", etc., is baseless and irresponsible. From other recent problematic Christgau quotes added to WP articles Talk:Jimi Hendrix#Erroneous Christgau claim, Talk:Freddie King#Bizarre Christgau quote, etc., I don't think that he can be considered a reliable source – the quotes attempt to provoke and gain attention through controversy. What may be passable for an album review where a certain amount of hyperbole is tolerated, should not be used in an encyclopedic article regarding the broader aspects of an artist's merits. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one in these discussions about Christgau! Do you have an issue with him? So far it hardly amount to consensus, just your opinion.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't have any issue with Christgau per se. Over the years, I have seen his reviews used in countless album articles. Sometimes, I've seen errors and faulty conclusions, but, by nature, reviews are largely the opinions of the writer and not strictly factual and I regard them as such. However, after a wikibreak, I noticed that Christgau's quotes and opinions have been added to several musician articles I watch. These appeared to be cherry picked from his typical short, blurb-style album reviews and not artist bios, where one would expect a more meaningful assessment of a musician's work.

For example, the quote "But he still has absolutely nothing to say ... It's that he's a technician and nothing more",[1] Christgau is referring to Blow by Blow album, Beck's first attempt at an instrumental jazz fusion-type album (that Christgau rated a "B–"). The way this was worded in the Beck article makes it appear that Christgau is addressing his overall work: "Robert Christgau has been less impressed with Beck, finding his career ... regarding him as 'mercurial', 'a techinician and nothing more', with nothing meaningful to express [emphasis added]." This statement is without the benefit of the Blow by Blow album review context, an album in which Beck significantly changed his style. Also the choice of descriptions "pathological", "unlistenable" (Truth with Rod Stewart received very good reviews), etc., seems like a hatchet job without imparting any real insight to Beck's body of work. One has wonder what prompted such vitriol.

Christgau's opinions (again taken from brief album reviews, not artist bios) used in the Freddie King and Hendrix articles are not corroborated or supported by other reliable music writers (Hendrix and Clapton are two of the most written about guitarists). To point out errors when there is sufficient reasoning is not an opinion. WP:EXCEPTIONAL includes "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources".

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well argued; I understand and concur.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Christgau's pathetic, but he's verifiable and unfortunately under Wiki rules he is a "Reliable Source." It doesn't matter what his bizarre blatherings state - Beck is enshrined in history as one of the most advanced and influential electric rock guitarists in history, and always will be. 50.111.18.208 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

After reading the article I see that this is a moot point as Christgau's critiques are no longer in the article, but might I suggest that a balance needs to be expressed. All critics are offering "their opinion" and will exhibit a range from positive to negative on any particular artist one might consider. I don't "get" Christgau sometimes, but in regards to Beck; balancing Christgau's view with that of a more favorable review might be better than exorcising all negatives from the article. That seems to be the way it is approached in other articles here. The reader should understand that a particular artist is received in various ways - not always exclusively favorably nor unfavorably. FWIW. And, yes, I find Beck to be one of the finest guitarists I've heardTHX1136 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The context that it was framed as an album-review entry is not relevant, since he is using the opportunity to make a bigger-picture comment on the musician's work in general -- why bother delving into an entire discography and wasting everyone's time on work he deems unworthy of buying? isento (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Consideration for consumers' time and money probably prompted such vitriol, hence the title "Consumer Guide"... anyway, there is a qualifying, more forgiving quote cited from him that balances the overall picture. So what gives removing the whole fucking thing? isento (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know for sure if they're problematic, the other ones. But it's usually an exhausting uphill battle combatting double standards - you literally have Erlewine suggesting the same thing about having a spotty career ("haphazard way ..."). isento (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It's odd that RC wants to warn people not to waste their money on Beck's albums, but he rates Blow by Blow and Flash (the reviews used for the "Style and influence" section) "B-" and "B". Providing different viewpoints is fine, but this is a hatchet job. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're a hatchet job ... "in fact I never suggested that grades were anything more than an imperfect shorthand." isento (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If he's blasting Beck while giving the album merely a B-minus, then it sounds like the "vitriol" is about Beck in general rather than the album itself... isento (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"I leave myself hedge room at the very bottom when there's something I feel the need to weigh in on briefly." So yeah, he takes opportunities to address things beyond the album itself in album reviews. But that might rub some totalitarian sensibilities the wrong way ... isento (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What part of "pathologically spotty career" is a commentary on the album? isento (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What part of "still has absolutely nothing to say" suggests this is exclusive to the album? isento (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it not too obvious that the word "customary" means what is usual for someone or something? Meaning, those are the qualities Christgau associates with Beck in general by the time of that album entry being written? Rendering the medium of this text -- an album entry -- irrelevant? isento (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can't cite it right now, but I'm pretty sure there's an Xgau Sez where he explains the actual prose should be the focus and that the grades are more arbitrary and secondary. isento (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@THX1136:, what are your thoughts on my points in defense of keeping Christgau's statements? Piotr Jr. (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

From a general pov, I still think that an article without negative and positive critical review would be out of balance. As far as keeping Christgau's critiques, I believe the reader is intelligent enough to make a decision as to how much weight they would place on his critiques as opposed to favorable ones. Perhaps some sort of balance between his and other negative viewpoints could be arrived at. My gut feeling is, as far as the guitar world goes, Jeff Beck is more highly regarded than negatively regarded. So, for me in this particular matter, I would disregard Christgau's comments as fringe personally. They are noted, but very little weight would be placed with them. I haven't went back through and read the article again, but if the reviews/critique of Beck is entirely positive that is not an accurate picture either. I think it's important to have at least one negative review to offset the positive - the reader can decided what weight they place on it. THX1136 (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Christgau's appraising him not in the context of the guitar world, but in the world, where recording artists releasing product to a pop marketplace are expected to meet particular standards of accessibility, substance, etc. Now, is it really fringe? Colin Larkin, in his Encyclopedia of Popular Music (another notable music book!), notes that Beck "figured highly in guitar polls", but his musical style was "erratic", and Larkin's grades through Beck's discography reflect that. Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Egghead06:, thoughts? Do you still believe they should be removed? Piotr Jr. (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Piotr is making false accusations, and not following WP:Assume good faith and WP:BRD:

• Piotr (as Dan65?) was bold[2]
• Three IPs partially reverted (only the Christgau comments, which were reverted)[3][4][5]
• I partially reverted[6] and started a talk page discussion[7]
• Egghead06 (who had reverted two of the IPs) agreed with my reasoning and let my revert stand.[8] Piotr (as Isento?) did not participate
• THX1136 added talk page comment that "balance needs to be expressed"[9]
• Piotr re-added Christgau comments[10] and then dismissed the earlier discussion on the talk page[11]
• I reverted[12]
• Piotr reverted with a false claim of WP:OWN against me and "Given how protective you are of this subject, I'm surprised to hear you didn't see I had actually seen, and addressed, the talk page.." and "Not surprised to see this poorly-synthesized boomer puffery either, given where the priorities have been at this article"[13]
• I reverted and noted "classic attack-the-editor rather than addressing the issue: THERE IS NO OWNERSHIP ISSUE – I rarely edit this page (I'm not even in the top 20 in the edit stats) and I removed it from my watch list long ago; try a real discussion rather than just forcing your view"[14]
• I added to discussion, restating that Christgau's comments were a "hatchet job".[15]
• Piotr responded with "You're a hatchet job ..."; the dictionary defines it as "a fierce attack on someone or their work, especially in print: the author's attempted hatchet job on the judge was totally unjustified and irresponsible." It's often used to describe critical reviews that are seen as unreasonably negative.
• Piotr reverted with the comment "All I saw there were lame, unconvincing excuses to bar a credible critical source"[16] and added to the existing Erlewine criticism.[17]
• I partially reverted (left the Erlewine criticism)[18]
• Piotr reverted with claim of edit war[19]

I'd like to move forward on this, but refusal to consider other's opinions along with attacks and snide comments make it difficult to have a productive discussion.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

None of what you just wrote is responding to any of my last comments about the content in question. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This claim that Christgau's comments are being taken out of context is a false claim. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't be considered a bold edit to add critical commentary from expert sources, since WP:SUBJECTIVE supports doing so. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice this thread when it was active. WP:CYCLE: "Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article." Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't refuse to take into consideration others' opinions. I took them into consideration and still arrived at the same conclusion. If we have a stalemate, as I suggested at your talk page, WP:RFC is the way to go. I would be more comfortable with the power over this being taken out of our hands. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As I suggested before, that Christgau's comments about Beck happen to be published in an album-review entry is an arbitrary consideration, and with the veracity of which it has been emphasized, I find it to be a double standard when compared with the subpar sourcing elsewhere in the article. Though in fairness, I have since noted in the text the dating of the source. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also improved the article elsewhere, in regards to the aforementioned sourcing issues. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer a cooling off period, so as not to give a knee-jerk response. I'll try later. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Beck's recording career is uneven, which the Erlewine quotes sum up quite well, even using "spotty". So why repeat it with "pathologically" ("involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease")? RC isn't a psychiatrist and I doubt he is quoting one. Beck's approach to recording is more like a jazz artist, constantly exploring with new line-ups, styles, etc. Unfortunately it doesn't always work. Years ago, I picked up one of his new albums and I don't think I made it all the way through before putting it in the recycle pile. RC gave it a bomb icon, so I guess we agree on one point. "Mercurial" is another more mental or personality attribute that doesn't add anything to Erlewine's "haphazard way he approached his career" quote. Better to leave the psychoanalysis out of it. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, okay, we'll leave the psychoanalytical allusions out, but that Beck hasn't had anything meaningful to express, that's a noteworthy bit, I think. It at least illuminates why he might have been "spotty". Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

And the last sentence is actually a positive: "customary focus, loyalty, and consistency of taste". I mean, I would like to keep it not only for the sake of balance, but it does offer at least a modicum of insight into the aesthetic appeal of Beck's playing, which the other authors cited don't really. Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, if Christgau is not an ideal or representative source here, can we cite some better ones to prove that and replace him with, for insight into the aesthetic appeal, or lack thereof, in Beck's music? Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not interested in whitewashing him. I can think of a couple of criticisms (doesn't write a lot of his material, etc.), but I would have to look for sources. Is the source for "lacking in subtlety, rhythm" RC's "Never before have I been fully convinced that Beck could improvise long lines, or jazz it up with a modicum of delicacy, or for that matter get funky"? RC only mentions that he mat be deficient in funk, not all areas of rhythm. Many musicians, who may be very proficient rhythmically, cannot play funk convincingly; it takes a certain feel or approach beyond just getting the beats right. Also, he seems to be referring to Beck's previous attempts at jazzy material (like on Rough and Ready[20]), not that he finds all of his previous work lacks subtlety; "delicacy" hardly seems the way to "jazz up" other material. Maybe it would be better to let the source speak for itself: "RC has questioned Beck's ability to 'improvise long lines, or jazz it up with a modicum of delicacy, or for that matter get funky'." —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can live with that. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I started by looking at album reviews and came across the RC-sponsored Pazz and Jop critics polls. For the years in which Beck released albums (except 72–73, when there were no polls), the critics ranked his albums fairly well (Rough and Ready 1971 #15, Blow by Blow 1975 #22, and Wired 1976 #27). RC's own reviews rated them C+, B-, and B-, yet from his commentary, one would expect much lower. In prose, RC seems to be responding to Beck on some personal level that isn't reflected in other critics' or his own rankings.

I honestly don't believe that Beck is seen an unimaginative one-dimensional guitarist/performer/recording artist who never came up anything creative or worthwhile. A "technician" would likely focus on "getting it right" at the expense of experimenting and taking chances. I'm not sure if still you want to add more, but the current wording is an OK compromise.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think he means to highlight the merits in Beck's playing to merely be technical ability, but no, I don't want to add more from him. I am actually interested in some more expert sources and found this one by guitarist-author John Perry (in the 33 1/3 book on Electric Ladyland) in regards to Beck: "Beck was always the quirkiest and least predictable of players. Still is. And he can claim to have had some influence on Hendrix; we know that Jimi studied his Yardbirds records closely, especially Beck's use of feedback, a phenomenon which up till then, in Mick Green's words, was 'just something you wanted to get rid of, especially with semi-acoustic (electric) guitars'." Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Another lengthier one from Bob Gulla, on Beck's style and technique. Lots to use from that source, I think. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Several have commented that Beck influenced Hendrix, although Hendrix claimed "I wasn't really influenced by Beck. I only heard one record by him, 'The Shapes of Things', and I really dug it. I just listened to it and I liked it." (for refs and more sources, see Shapes of Things#Recognition and influence; also Beck's Bolero#Legacy last paragraphs). Hendrix also used the intro to Beck's solo on "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago" for his on "Stone Free" and the main chords to Beck's "Rice Pudding" for part of "In from the Storm", but don't have a RS on hand. Also, Beck has been connected to the earliest significant musical use of feedback, fuzz box, and experiments with oriental-isms/raga rock and psychedelic rock (see Shapes#Critical reception and Heart Full of Soul#Composition and recording). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

insulting beck's page by referencing some baddie that is not even one eighteenth as talented

what gives?

there should be some kind of vote on this. jeff beck is called 'beck'. no one in the UK says "oh you mean jeff beck?" when you say the word "beck".

before 1990, no one in the world would say that. but somehow this baddie took a legend's moniker and highjacked wikipedia.

i was shocked to see that, just because this jobber kid (by comparison) calls himself "beck", that he is the default link.

it's unacceptable. something needs to be done. jeff beck is the real beck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.110.209 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Good job he's not the real McCoy? Hundreds of thousands of younger music fans know only of Beck. Why should they care about this rock dino? lol. But that's why we have the:

Not to be confused with Jeff Beck.

over there, just in case... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Have restored the {{Distinguish|Beck}} here, as Beck is very definitely a notable musician. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So were Jeff Healey, Jeff Buckley and Jeff Jarrett. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention Joan Jeff. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"I Love Rocky Road", sure, often imitated but never duplicated! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just realized I said "Road", as in Road Dogg, as in Jesse James, as in The Real Double J. Normally it would have been my first thought. I think I'm getting too old for this greasy kid's stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

that disambiguation was not there at the time of my original post, smart asses. but since it is, i'll allow the tag to remain on the great one's page. good job being useful, dude(ttes) 198.53.108.48 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"Soundtracks"?

I assume that User:Avbryce was aware of this edit which recently introduced a new section for "Soundtracks" to the article, as they subsequently added to and amended that list. I noticed that they did not provide any sources for any of the items. I have since searched for sources and have been unable to find any. So I have now commented out the whole section as a possible hoax. If anyone is able to provide any source(s), some or all of the list could be reinstated. Otherwise it will have to be deleted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Death

On Tuesday, January 10 Jeff Beck passed away due to bacterial meningitis. 2001:48F8:9004:11C5:54E7:B85C:E7B4:308B (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Was it the 10th or the 11th (today)? Article currently says 10th, but I can't find any source talking about it more than an hour old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.96.154 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times, "Jeff Beck, Guitarist With a Page in Rock History, Dies at 78", By Jim Farber , Jan. 11, 2023Updated 7:03 p.m. ET

"Jeff Beck, one of the most skilled, admired and influential guitarists in rock history, died on Tuesday at a hospital near his home at Riverhall, a rural estate in southern England. He was 78.

The cause was bacterial meningitis, Melissa Dragich, his publicist, said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/arts/music/jeff-beck-dead.html T.C.Parker (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been in shock since 6:30 EST - saw him 3 times in-concert - this will take time to absorb. I hope a legacy section of absolute class will be updated for the article. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:21F0:7880:1562:766:F6EB:342 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo needs updating now

Since Beck has passed away, the infobox photo should be changed to a 1960s or 1970s photo. 92.15.148.117 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, do you have a free image ? - FlightTime (open channel) 05:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

One has been added to the infobox, from the late 1970s. --92.15.148.117 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

I would add what makes him a notable guitarist per WP:FIRSTBIO, but have been reverted twice. The first sentence should include, name , nationality, position, and what makes them notable. Is there a reason to go against this MOS? What do others think? Malerooster (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"And not from the Covid vaccine as was being claimed via online source"

Where is the evidence for this claim? If there isn't any, it should be removed. An article on a recently deceased celebrity is not the place for anti-vaxxer remarks. 92.15.148.117 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I will say this, however: Rest in peace, Jeff.—Bde1982 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Was this conspiracy-theory nonsense removed? 2603:6080:21F0:7880:3513:F68E:D855:9374 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not confuse "conspiracy-theory nonsense" with "nonsense". If someone stated that "Beck died because of Covid vaccine", it does not mean that it's a conspiracy theory. It'd be a conspiracy theory if someone claimed that "Beck died because of Covid vaccine and, because Covid vaccine causes harm, the act of vaccinating Beck was done to cause harm to him". That would be a conspiracy theory, conspiracy being knowing or being convinced that Covid vaccine causes harm to the vaccinated and giving it to Beck to cause harm to him without him being aware of getting vaccine or him not being aware that vaccine causes harm. 24.225.161.193 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

the idea that Covid vaccines are killing people is conspiracy-theory nonsense - learn it, love it, live it! 2603:6080:21F0:7880:A418:996B:CC89:8D2C (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

IDK, check. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it has now gone. But why is this article protected? IP editors are unable add any sources to addresses the nine "[citation needed]" tags. 86.187.171.7 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You can always ask someone with auto-confirmed to add information, if it is sourced and appropriate of course. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources for him forming The Jeff Beck Group in 1967: [21], [22], [23], [24]. Maybe you can find better ones. They weren't exactly an obscure band. 86.187.171.7 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeff Beck also went to Elmwood High School in Surrey

Jeff Beck also went to Elmwood High School in Surrey. 86.19.163.39 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to a reliable, published source for that? Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

article should ITN by now

Beck is one of the most significant people rock history - what's the hold-up? 2603:6080:21F0:7880:A418:996B:CC89:8D2C (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• ITN is dysfunctional for such famous folk. But it doesn't much matter because the article was the top read on Thursday with over a million readers on that day. That peak has passed now though and Lisa Marie Presley has the spotlight. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Itn is not dysfunctional. Wikipedia is making a declaration of irrelevance by slighting Jeff's memory this way. People are furious. Some body says there are too many uncited facts. Who cares. You only die once. Not twice. Please get him in immediately! Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)