Talk:The Black Crowes

Collection, Eddie Harsh, Lineup

I fixed the spelling on collection and corrected the release date. Later I will add something about Eddie Harsh as soon as I have more info. Okay I sadly updated the band Lineup too. get better eddie! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.60.45.50 (talk)

Reunion lineup?

Besides the Robinson brothers, who is in the reunion lineup of the Black Crowes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KitHutch (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 April 2005.

Jam band?

The Crowes jam pretty hard when I see them in concert. Why do people keep deleting the jam band off their description? KitHutch 18:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Because their music is more about the lyrics than the jams.

--++ because they are NOT a jam band - jam band is a genre that includes bands like Phish and The Greatful Dead. It has nothing to do with jamming hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.38.33 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I Agree with KitHutch, the Crowes seem to meet all criteria for a jam band: live improvisation, an ever changing setlist, allowing and encouraging fans to record performances and to share these... More than that recurring jams in the live performance of certain songs have evolved into new songs in and by themselves. Obviously not every song performed live is treated in this manner, but there is always room for variation, and improvisation based there upon! I do agree that, with the Crowes, the lyrics are more important than the jam, but jams are used as a means for the various band members to forefront certain emotions within those lyrics. And, as anyone who has seen the Crowes perform live must know, it is Chris who gives the nod to the band, either literately or figuratively through his body language or his vocals, to indicate when the jam can commence and when it should end. This role of band leader/director does however not interfere with his enjoyment in and partaking of the jam. In short, the jams are used to emphasize the lyrics, but does such a use make them any less of a jam band? Satoriforsale (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackcrowes.jpg

Image:Blackcrowes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are they still played on the radio?

Does anyone know why "hard to handle" is still played regularly on the radio?

Please sign your posts with four ~ marks. If you don't have a Wikipedia account, your IP address will be used for signing. Revolutionaryluddite 04:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

there's a bot does that now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maxim

Did Maxim really apology to the Black Crowes? I only know about that open letter posted by Angelus because Maxim only apologized to its readers and never to the band. Or has there been a "real" apology to the band since then? Otherwise the facts mentioned in the articel should be changed.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bootlegging culture

Black Crowes have been widely known for supporting bootleg recordings of all their concerts, and in fact condone high quality recording equipment plugged directly into the sound board. Certainly this would have been reported on by the music press and thus qualify for including in the article. Jtdunlop (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Why is the "history"-section subdivided into 1990-1995 and 1996-2001? Wouldn't it make more sense to make the cut after 3 snakes and the "departure" of two band-members?--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Go ahead and be bold! The article needs a lot of work. DickClarkMises (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Discography

I don't understand why a discography section is only for the main studio albums on this page. Other bands have either their entire catalog listed or a link to their discography page. We need to be consistent. KitHutch (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be consistent. To that end, a standard for discography sections has been developed here. Of course, there's also WP:IGNORE, but what's the compelling reason to do so? —Zeagler (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the standard that says only studio albums need to be listed. It does say, "If a musician has released an extremely large number of albums, it may be better to describe their discography in a prose summary." Since the Crowes do have a large number of albums, perhaps this is what should be done. KitHutch (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call their output "extremely large", but when we split content from a main page (as we're doing with The Black Crowes' discography), we almost always leave a summary behind. You can see examples of this at myriad featured articles. Take a look at Barack Obama: almost every section has a "Main article" listing at the top. How lame would the article be if there were no prose in those sections? The summarized prose sections provide a brief overview for readers who only want the highlights. That's why I'm in favor of listing just studio albums in the "Discography" section at The Black Crowes. Here's how it was done in every featured rock music article – the only ones worth citing, as they've all been scrutinized heavily – after the most recent FAC/FAR:

• "Weird Al" Yankovic – full details for each studio album
• AC/DC – full details for each studio and live album, and videos
• Alison Krauss – each album and single listed with chart positions and certifications
• Audioslave – studio albums with release date and label
• Celine Dion – partial album listing, mostly studio
• Bob Dylan – none (33 studio albums qualifies as an extremely large number)
• Genesis – none (15 studio albums)
• Godsmack – all albums and some details
• Janet Jackson – studio albums with release year only
• John Mayer – albums, singles and collaborations
• Joy Division – studio albums
• Kylie Minogue – all albums (but article promoted four years ago)
• Michael Jackson – studio albums
• Motörhead – all albums and chart positions
• Nick Drake – studio albums
• Opeth – studio albums
• Phil Collins – all albums and number one singles
• Sly & the Family Stone – all albums and Top 40 singles
• Gwen Stefani – studio albums, video and singles
• The KLF – studio albums and UK Top 10 singles
• Tool – studio albums and others
• U2 – all albums
• Frank Zappa – none (~30 studio albums)

In light of the variety of formats used in featured articles, which one would you advocate now and why? —Zeagler (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I would include all albums (live and studio). For certain bands like the Black Crowes, the live albums are just as important as their studio albums. Take for example, the Allman Brothers Band. At Fillmore East is an essential album and should always be included on their discography. By excluding live albums, where does that put the next two Crowes albums, which were recorded before a live audience in much the same way that Neil Young's Rust Never Sleeps was. The audience noise was subsequently removed, but technically Rust is still a live album and is also an essential Neil Young album. However, it's not up to me. We need to follow the guidelines that have already been established. They say to have a short prose summarize and a link to the discography article. KitHutch (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer including all albums to having only a link to the main article, and I seriously doubt a prose section is warranted. Also, I don't really agree that TBC's live albums are that important to their canon. They don't offer much in the way of newly released songs (just "Title Song" and some covers), they don't illustrate much artistic development (except maybe Freak 'n' Roll) and they don't capture the band at the top of their game (maybe F'n'R again). At Fillmore East is certainly a different story; in fact I successfully argued it should be included in the chronology that links ABB albums in the infoboxes.

One thing with respect to the next album(s): do you think Before the Frost...Until the Freeze should be considered one album since you can't buy the first without getting the second? The vinyl version will package both; the CD version just packages ...Until the Freeze in a different format (albeit with one hoop to jump through). See Wow/Grape Jam for an example of a similar package. We should figure this out before the page(s) get created... —Zeagler (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then let's include ALL albums (studio & live). KitHutch (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Current lineup

An anonymous user keeps listing Magistro on percussion as an official member of the band. Is there any reference anywhere for this? I think that he is just a tour member of the band. KitHutch (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Live vs. studio

According to the wikipedia article, a "live album is a recording consisting of material (usually music) recorded during stage performances, commonly contrasted with a studio album. Live albums may be recorded at a single concert, or combine recordings made at multiple concerts." Crowelogy was not recorded at a concert. It was recorded in a studio. Just bacause it consists of old re-arranged Black Crowes' songs does not make it a live album. KitHutch (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris Hilsman

has Chris Hisman been in the band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.161.132 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Black Crowes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130610150450/http://www.eagle-rock.com/eaglerockUSA/media_detail.php?media_id=1026 to http://www.eagle-rock.com/eaglerockUSA/media_detail.php?media_id=1026

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Black Crowes. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/09/28/6.tk.blackcrowes.0928.p1.php?section=entertainment
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/09/29/home.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813095853/http://www.blackcrowes.com/090810.html to http://blackcrowes.com/090810.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119021633/http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/blackcrowes_int.htm to http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/blackcrowes_int.htm

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) 04:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)