Talk:Jefferson Starship discography

Untitled

Yes split it it and change it... this article is a crap. First of All it is a Grace Slicks discography and second of all these albums categorisation is wrong. It should be categorised. 1. GS with The Great society 2. Jefferson Airplane 3. Jefferson Starship 4. Starship 5. GS and Paul Kantner 6. GS solo projects 7. GS with others (e.g. If I Could Only Remember My Name by David Crosby (1971) #12 US) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.123.68 (talk) 2010-02-18

Tables Created

Hopefully, the creation of tables has redeemed this article from being "a crap." Anyone who knows anything about Jefferson Starship can appreciate how convoluted the band's history has been. Doubtless, this convoluted history contributed somewhat to the "crap" status of the previous discography list. 76.25.41.98 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This discography is missing many albums (see Rhapsody or Amazon) such as Soiled Dove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.185.207 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Collaborations section needs revision

HI Editors

I would like to remove the albums under the "Collaborations" section that were prior to Jefferson Starship. These have nothing to do with the band Jefferson Starship and were produced prior to the inception of Jefferson Starship band in 1974. I'm trying to clear up misconceptions. They should be included on their respective articles, not on the JS article. Thank you! I'll await input before removing them. Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

Hello Cheryl,

I believe the "Collaborations" should remain as currently configured, including the albums prior to 1974. The purpose is to show additional albums where multiple band members also worked together, regardless of when exactly that actually occurred. Many of the band members worked together on other albums, both before and after 1974. It is more useful to contain all of those collaborations in the article and not just some of them based on when they happened.

It is in a separate section from the "Albums" section, and there is a column in this section listed who the artist of each work is, so it is clear from the article that these were not part of the "Jefferson Starship" discography. The first sentence in the article already contains lists the date 1974 in it, so there should be no confusion based on the article. I agree with user YoungHippie from a September 2017 edit that the "Collaborations" should be maintained in this article, and that it should not be changed to remove albums made prior to 1974. Regards, AbleGus (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cheryl Fullerton and AbleGus -- I'm wondering whether it could be a good compromise to add an explanatory sentence at the beginning of the "Collaborations" section that makes the distinction clear. Something like, "This list contains all albums in which members of Jefferson Starship collaborated, regardless of when they occurred." And the list also excludes Jefferson Airplane albums, even though obviously members of Jefferson Starship worked together on Jefferson Airplane albums, right? For instance, I see in "The Beatles discography" article that there is an explanatory sentence in this section. What do you think? -- Cloud atlas (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cloud atlas Thank you for your suggestion. I'm mulling this over. Does Ablegus have an opinion? Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

Hello Cheryl and Cloud Atlas. It probably does make sense to put a sentence explaining what is being listed in the Collaborations section. Does "The following is a list of albums in which more than one musician who was a member of Jefferson Starship performed" work? I think that clarifies what the list is, and does not need further explanation. Regarding the Jefferson Airplane albums, I am not sure why they are excluded without explanation, as they all would qualify. This list is not complete. It also does not include the first three Starship studio albums, the KBC Band album from 1986, and some the Hot Tuna albums in the 70's (Papa John Creach and Jack Casady) plus in the 90's through early 2000's (Casady and Pete Sears). There are likely more that are missing beside just those. Perhaps this is a task I will take on at a future date. Regards, AbleGus (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Added More Information to the Introduction

Hello Editors The introduction seemed a little brief and could use a bit more information, so I added a few more facts using Jeff Tamarkin's book "Got a Revolution: The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane." I hope this meets with everyone's approval.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

Hello Cheryl. I have reverted your additions to the opening of the Jefferson Starship Discography article. I do not feel a listing of the band members, and then a subsequent member joining the group really fits on the discography article for the band. That information is already thoroughly covered in both the main Jefferson Starship article and in the List of Jefferson Starship Members article, it is unnecessary to include it again here. The Jefferson Airplane Discography, Starship Discography, and Hot Tuna Discography pages all do not include membership details on them. We should probably keep it consistent here as well. I also feel we should keep the original phrasing "grew out of Jefferson Airplane" as this is in keeping with other sources such as the AllMusic Biography for Jefferson Starship(https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-starship-mn0000840050/biography), which states "an even greater commercial entity than its predecessor, Jefferson Airplane, the band out of which it evolved." This brief exposition at the start is again similar to the opening sentences in both the Jefferson Airplane Discography (The following is a comprehensive discography of Jefferson Airplane, an American rock band which formed in San Francisco in 1965) and the Starship Discography (The following is a comprehensive discography of Starship, an American rock band which spun off from Jefferson Starship in 1985) pages. I think we should keep it as previously written. Regards, AbleGus (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Cloud atlas

Hello AbleGus, In the spirit of compromise I suggest the following introduction to this discography article:

"The following is a comprehensive discography of Jefferson Starship, an American rock band from San Francisco formed in 1974."

I feel there needs to be a more solid, historical delineation between the two bands, and that it should be made clear that Jefferson Starship was a "new band" formed two years after the breakup of Jefferson Airplane: that it was "not a continuation of where the Airplane left off which is insinuated by the current description, "grew out of." Tamarkin, Got a Revolution! (The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane, pgs.266-267.) I'm objecting to the phrase "grew out of" on Wikipedia as it is not historically accurate. Can we agree on a middle ground here? I would also, like to change the introductory paragraph on the Jefferson Starship article to eliminate the phrase "evolved out of" for the same reason as this is also misleading and not historically accurate. I would cite the Paul Kantner interview here from "Classic Rock Here and Now." Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

Hello Cheryl,

I respectfully disagree with your proposal to modify the introduction to the Jefferson Starship discography article. First, you have removed the name Jefferson Airplane from the sentence. I think that a reference to Jefferson Airplane should be maintained as it reinforces the connection to the reader. This is similar to how the introduction to Starship Discography article is worded (The following is a comprehensive discography of Starship, an American rock band which spun off from Jefferson Starship). and makes sense in both cases to reference them.

With regards to removing the phrase "grew out of Jefferson Airplane" from the article, I also do not agree that removing that statement is accurate. The next sentence on page 267 in the Jeff Tamarkin book, "Got a Revolution! The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane" states, "But they ultimately agreed with (Bill) Thompson that maintaining the connection made good business sense." There was no formal break-up of Jefferson Airplane in 1972 after the end of the ``Long John Silver`` tour (Tamarkin, Jeff (2003). Got a Revolution: The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane. Pages 258-259). Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen appeared on Kantner, Slick, and Freiberg's subsequent 1973 album Baron von Tollbooth & the Chrome Nun, and Casady appeared on Slick's Manhole album, so members of both factions were still collaborating during this period. The first formal announcement of the fate of Jefferson Airplane were press releases in early 1974 about Kantner, Slick and company going on tour as "Jefferson Starship" while Casady and Kaukonen were not joining them.

The term "grew out of" that appears in this article, and the phrase "evolved out of" in the main Jefferson Starship album are in line with multiple sources. The opening line of the AllMusic Jefferson Starship Biography (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-starship-mn0000840050/biography) states "Jefferson Starship was among the most successful arena rock bands of the 1970s and early '80s, an even greater commercial entity than its predecessor, Jefferson Airplane, the band out of which it evolved." The Jefferson Airplane Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Biography (https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/jefferson-airplane?gclid=CJ2NhLWm4tUCFUdWDQodqFwBAA) includes the following, "Jefferson Airplane formally evolved into Jefferson Starship in 1974, achieving considerably more commercial success in the Seventies than the Airplane had known in the previous decade." An AP article (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qyEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KZcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7193,2688665&dq=paul+kantner&hl=en) by Mary Campbell entitled "Marty Balin Rejoins Jefferson Starship" from June 15, 1975 states, "Jefferson Airplane started in 1965 and the present Jefferson Starship 'just growed' out of it. The group didn't stop and start again." I think this is sufficient to maintain the current phasing in both articles. I do not think this is misleading or historically inaccurate to include those sentences as currently configured, but rather it is in line with other sources about Jefferson Starship. I do not feel the need to further delineate Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship by removing widely accepted and sourced information on their relationship from either this article or the main Jefferson Starship article. RegardsAbleGus (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbleGus and Cheryl Fullerton -- maybe the best way to do it would be to state in clear facts the circumstances connecting Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship, because "grew out of" is a somewhat colloquial phrase that might convey different meanings to different people. Perhaps something like, "The following is a comprehensive discography of Jefferson Starship, an American rock band from San Francisco formed in 1974 by several members of Jefferson Airplane." What do you think? -- Cloud atlas (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cloud atlas. I have reviewed your proposed wording, but I am not in favor of changing it in the manner you suggest. The wording "formed in 1974 by several members of Jefferson Airplane" does not seem to sufficiently convey the connection. It was more than several members, as it included the five remaining members of Jefferson Airplane minus Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen. I am not sure a single sentence can fully cover the the relationship, but this wording does not give full weight to how Jefferson Starship developed. In the AllMusic Jefferson Airplane Biography by William Ruhlmann (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-airplane-mn0000840102/biography), it states "Rather than formally breaking up, they mutated into other configurations, Hot Tuna and Jefferson Starship." Jefferson Airplane split into two groups, Hot Tuna and Jefferson Starship. I think "mutated" is probably not the best word choice for this Jefferson Starship Discography article. Both the AllMusic Jefferson Starship Biography and The Jefferson Airplane Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Biography cited earlier in the discussion use variations of the word "evolve" to describe this development. If we change "grew out of" here in this article, it should only be to a synonym or similar phrase consistent with these sources. Thanks for your time and input to this discussion. AbleGus (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbleGus and Cloud atlas --I agree with Cloud atlas that the term "grew out of" is a "colloquial" term and can be confusing to the readers, and that for clarity should be changed to "founded." If we add the names of the founding members of Jefferson Starship, former members of Jefferson Airplane, with the addition of Craig Chaquico and Pete Sears, I feel that would be historically accurate and indisputable. What do you think? This is what I propose:

---

"The following is a comprehensive discography of Jefferson Starship, an American rock band from San Francisco founded in 1974 by former members of Jefferson Airplane, Paul Kantner, Grace Slick, David Freiberg, John Barbata and Papa John Creach, and new members Craig Chaquico and Pete Sears." What do you think?"Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

Hello Cheryl I disagree with using the wording you have proposed here to modify the opening of this article. The statement "founded in 1974 by former members of Jefferson Airplane" again seems to downplay the relation with Jefferson Airplane and make it seem almost coincidental. There was continuity here. The name Jefferson Starship was chosen, or more accurately was re-used from ""Blows Against the Empire specifically to maintain that connection (page 267 in the Jeff Tamarkin book, "Got a Revolution! The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane"). The term "former members" does not match with the prior sources I provided about there being no formal break-up of Jefferson Airplane (Tamarkin, Jeff (2003). Got a Revolution: The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane. Pages 258-259) and that "The group didn't stop and start again (from the Mary Campbell article cited earlier).

I do not agree that providing a list of band members should be included on the discography article for the band when this is already thoroughly covered in Jefferson Starship article. It is not even clear to me how you are determining this list, since bassist Peter Kaukonen was a member for the spring 1974 tour prior to being replaced by Pete Sears. Regardless of that, this information is sufficiently covered elsewhere and a member list is unwarranted here.

Regarding the phrase "grew out of Jefferson Airplane" used here, I feel this is a more accurate description. I am not opposed to changing the word "grew out of" in the article, but only to something that conveys the same meaning. Phrases like "evolved out of Jefferson Airplane" or "developed out of Jefferson Airplane" would also work here. Again, this is supported by sources such as the AllMusic Jefferson Starship Biography and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Biography as an apt description of what actually happened. What you are proposing here is to change the wording in a way that effectively changes the meaning of the sentence. To me, making that change does not adequately describe what occurred per the sources. Regards,AbleGus (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

AbleGus and Cheryl Fullerton -- first, I would just like to say that I'm continually impressed with the depth of your knowledge and passion about the Jefferson Airplane / Jefferson Starship / Starship universe. Regarding the wording, I like AbleGus's suggestion of the word "developed", and I'm going to go ahead and make that change in the introduction of the list article. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cloud atlas, thanks for your response and the kind words. I concur with your change to the introduction to the article. AbleGus (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cloud atlas and AbleGus-- thanks to you both for your input. I still have a problem with the wording "developed" as it doesn't quite confer the distinction between the two bands, Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship that is an important fact to state to our audience. I know that many sources use the words "evolved" and "grew from" quite casually. Jefferson Starship is a new band with new music that wanted a fresh start and to blaze a new musical direction. Yes, it was founded by former members of Jefferson Airplane and others, but the only reason they kept the "Jefferson" part of it was because the manager thought it was a clever marketing ploy to keep the association. That is stated in Tamarkin's book on page 266. "Starship" came from a track on one of Paul's solo albums. On page 262 of Tamarkin's book he states the final Jefferson Airplane tour was in 1973 and their final recording was in the same year, Thirty Seconds Over Winterland.

Jefferson Starship was founded in 1974. The word "developed" does not quite convey the importance of the contributions of all of the original founding members which include two new members, to the new entity, "Jefferson Starship." I believe it sounds as if there is a bias toward the old Jefferson Airplane and the distinction between JA and JS is blurred by its use.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton

Hello Cheryl, thanks for your response on this discussion. I feel the word "developed" is an accurate and appropriate way to characterize what happened. Once again, this wording is consistent with multiple reliable published sources, which I have previously cited, and should be used here. This is the expected standard is for Wikipedia articles. Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship have separate Wikipedia articles, that conveys a distinction to the audience. They are however, very related subjects based on a number of reasons, some of which include the overlapping personnel (Kantner, Slick, Creach, Barbata, Freiberg, and later Balin), the same management/staff, the contract with RCA, and the selection of a related name when the decision was made to regroup by the remaining members of Jefferson Airplane. Many reference guides list them together under a single entry, such as the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll 3rd Edition, 2001 (pages 489-491). Any attempt to downplay or minimize that connection in the Wikipedia article is not consistent with the sources and should not be reflected in the Wikipedia article. It is your opinion that many sources "use the words evolved and grew from quite casually" but these are sourced statements and should be treated with appropriate weight in the Wikipedia article. Jefferson Airplane concluded the "Long John Silver" tour in 1972 and released the album "Thirty Seconds over Winterland" in 1973, but again they did not formally break up per the Jefferson Airplane AllMusic Biography (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-airplane-mn0000840102/biography). The remaining members waited for Jack Casady and Jorma Kaukonen to return during this period, which Casady and Kaukonen said they would eventually do. After enough time elapsed without their returning, the five remaining Jefferson Airplane members decided to regroup without them, they added new members, and reorganized as Jefferson Starship.

Your assertion that they only kept the name Jefferson "because the manager thought it was a clever marketing ploy" is not a fair description of the wording used (on page 267) in the Jeff Tamarkin book "Got a Revolution?", it sounds almost underhanded. On page 267 of the Tamarkin book, it actually says it was selected because "maintaining the connection made good business sense." Yes, the name "Jefferson Starship" was first used as a co-credit to the 1970 "Blows Against the Empire" album that also contained a track named "Starship" on it, and Paul chose to reuse it here in 1974. Regardless of the reason for the decision to use that name, the simple fact is they used it to maintain a connection to Jefferson Airplane. We have a reliable source stating that fact. The Wikipedia article is best served by an accurate reflection of the facts based on the preponderance of the evidence, which is what using the word "developed" in that sentence does. Concerns about ensuring that all the members, including the two new members, receive adequate recognition should not outweigh maintaining the accuracy of the Wikipedia article. Besides, the body of the main Jefferson Starship article already adequately and accurately discusses the history of the band including who was involved and when. That is sufficient recognition. I do not feel that this wording reflects a bias towards Jefferson Airplane that blurs distinction, but rather a reflection of the facts based on numerous sources. I feel this article should keep the word "developed" as currently written. Regards, AbleGus (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)