Talk:Norman Petty

Amburn claims

Following a complaint on OTRS (292826) I've removed the sentence apparently sourced from the Ellis Amburn book. The claims do not seem to be substantiated by any other source, and while the neutral point of view policy permits the inclusion of minority points of view, claims such as this need to be represented in the appropriate fashion, citing exactly which sources are relied on and clearly identifying the source of the point of view. Please do not re-add these claims until a satisfactory wording can be reached. --bainer (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• So you're saying the author based it on gossip and hearsay? Wahkeenah 04:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I don't have access to the book and I have no idea what it says. What I'm saying is a page reference to the book would be necessary, to allow others to check whether the book even supports the claim. Simply saying that it is in the book is not sufficient. But of course you would also be well-advised to actually assess the sources that Amburn relies on. --bainer (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, here's what it says, on page 46, which is also well-sourced in the bibliography, if you really want to get into that. I'm not trying to make some big deal out of this, I just think it's an interesting fact. "The Pettys' relationship was more business than pleasure; though few knew it at the time, Petty was gay, Vi bisexual. Their assistant, Norma Jean Berry, was a lesbian. All three, of course were secretive about their sexual orientations." [It was the mid-1950s, rememember]. "When the Pettys were outed in the London Daily Mail in 1994, Sonny Curtis, who knew everyone at the Clovis studio, remained skeptical: 'If Norman was gay, he never put a shot on me,' said Curtis in a 1995 interview. 'Even if he was gay, what the heck?' However, Niki Sullivan, another key player, confirms the report." The ISBN for this book is 0-312-14557-8. It's from St. Martin's Griffin. I have no idea if it's still in print. It was published in 1995. Wahkeenah 06:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack Vaughn link

I don't think this Jack Vaughn (which is used in the article) is the correct Jack Vaughn. Spud ^Hai/_watidone 01:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's him. Very versatile fellow. Serious, though, I removed the link. Good catch. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vi's given name

Was Vi Petty's given name Violet or Virginia? Sources vary.76.195.220.86 (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick Google search seems to lean toward Violet. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Business Ethics

This article has a definite 'PR for Norman Petty' tone to it. After reading the Buddy Holly article, I included some not so positive information about business disputes between them. I also checked the BMI Repertoire Search and discovered that Petty has credit for 204 songs, with many different collaborators, many of whom he recorded, reminiscent of the practice at the time of producers and publishers adding their names to songs they didn't write as a condition of working with young, unestablished artists. Tapered (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that with references. On an aside note, it is still common practice in many industries, for example, pharmaceuticals, architecture, mechanical design, to employ somebody to be creative, and when they are successfully creative, to claim the royalties, it is called "work for hire" and a fairly common practice still in the music business. In fact, anybody who employed is in exactly the same position! When an artist is successful, they realise they have signed away the larger portion of their potential income - then they consult the lawyers (something they should have done to start with perhaps?). We have no idea how many other artists Petty funded, but never recouped his investment, and without fuller information we have no idea whether, Petty was following the normal practices of the time, was a littler sharper or fairer than others doing the same in the same period, or even an outright crook. Judgement on Petty must be against the practices of the time, not today's ethics as "ethics" change all the time. FWIW, there are signed agreements lodged with BMI, signed by both Petty & Holly confirming that they did co-write the songs. Sorry for rant, I just needed to vent, but I am happy that it is referenced and therefore should stay in the article. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PR tone? How about factual tone? Buddy Holly fans have needed a scapegoat/villain for the past 50 years, but legal documentation has proved otherwise. Recent legal proceedings with the Buddy Holly Estate, MCA (aka Decca) and the Petty Estate proved that all funds suspected to be owing by Petty were in fact owed by Decca/MCA for record sales that the artist was not compensated for. The record label, not Petty was owing money much to the misunderstanding of not only Buddy, but the Holly family, Crickets and anti-Petty fans for the past 50 years. The Los Angeles court even mentioned that they had never seen such impecable finance records as the Petty Estate had regarding alleged money owed. After 50 years of false allegations, the Petty Estate did not lose vs. Holley family/Crickets lawsuit...MCA did. This is FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.106.251 (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please document this. be glad to see the article edited to include this if documented. No documentation provided to back this assertion. Until documentation, the Reuters article needs to stand, as a reliable source. Tapered (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the practice prevailing at the time, would it be more appropriate from a NPOV to change the final word from "offenders" to "examples"? 59.167.152.153 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Snow Job

Here is a quote

[Petty] accrued writing credits - and consequently royalty payments - to himself which are still causing financial difficulties some 50 years on.

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hc948. That sort of thing should be addressed in the article. 31.52.254.117 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some of this article feels a little off, like it was written by people directly linked to the subject (this line in particular stuck out to me: "The original 7th Street Studio is available for tours by appointment only.") Whether Petty was the actual villain of the Holly story or not (the souces I've seen certainly indicate that the whole thing is much more complicated than that), the information belongs in the article so that people can make their own judgements.

I have added more info about the MCA lawsuit and the Blanas book, as well as general info from news articles and interviews, trying to remain as neutral as possible. FatPie123 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)