Talk:The Fourmost

Untitled

To the previous writer, thanks for the helpful edits. There was very little information in this entry, and I took my time getting the facts right. This was my first entry in Wikipedia. Hope I did all right. It was enjoyable. R. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.79.74 (talk • contribs).

Original research

There's a few claims that such-and-such a song "sounds like", "is reminiscent of" etc. These statements could be seen as original research unless references are provided for them. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 24.99.154.165

Could IP editor 24.99.154.165 please explain the following additions?

• "compositions which were felt to be unsuitable for The Beatles themselves" - By removing the word "typically" you are suggesting this was the only reason. Was it?
• "and said to be written by Lennon while on the toilet" - Nothing wrong with this fact, but do you have a cite for it? "said to be" are what Wikipedia calls weasel words and should be avoided. Who is saying this?
• "although it sounded remarkably Beatlesque at the time" - this can only be a matter of opinion. Whose opinion is it?
• "a convincing re-make of "The In Crowd" - again, whether it is 'convincing' or not is an opinion. Whose?
• "In August 1966, the group tried to piggy-back once more on the Beatles' work" - Did the band say this at the time, or is it someone's opinion of their attempts? Whose opinion? It's a slightly disparaging assessment; Wikipedia should strive to phrase things neutrally.
• "which seemed to channel The Lettermen - albeit with British accents" - Another opinion. Whose? Why are The Lettermen a good reference point to compare them with? Are you assuming the reader knows who The Lettermen are and what they sounded like?

Now you might guess where these questions are heading. If the above opinions are your own, then they are not notable and not acceptable in the article. And if there are those of someone who is notable, then you need to cite them. Otherwise they'll continue to be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "typically" because, in this context, it didn't change the meaning of the sentence -- one I originally wrote, along with most of the entry. The early Lennon song was written on the toilet according to Lennon.

I do not agree it is a matter of opinion that the song "I'm In Love" sounds remarkably Beatlesque. I think it's true, in terms of song construction, harmonic content, group harmonizing, lead singing, and instrumentation. The point I was making is that although the song sounded very much like The Beatles, it failed to chart in the U.S. That seems notable to me, not because I think it but because it's true that the song failed to chart in the U.S. and it's equally true that it sounds Beatlesque.

The bit about piggybacking on the Beatles' work was a recent edit written by someone else, but I think it's an accurate statement, not a disparaging one. The Fourmost began their career releasing as singles a couple songs written by John Lennon. After a few releases by other songwriters, and only one hit record, the group released another single from The Beatles catalog. I suppose the most neutral way of putting it would be to say the group released such and such a song. But that makes the entry sound like vanilla ice cream. Of course, that is only my opinion and some folks are partial to vanilla ice cream. When you talk about how giving an opinion is a no-no in this forum, I'd suggest a predominating percentage of "information" on Wikipedia is opinion masquerading as neutral fact.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis seems sound, but I'm afraid that doesn't get around that it's mostly opinion, and if there's no attribution to it we've no option but to put it down to yourself. Wikipedia isn't somewhere to publish your opinions. An if Lennon did say he wrote it on the toilet (which sounds the kind of throwaway line Lennon would say) then a cite would be good. As for it sounding like "vanilla ice cream", well, that's encyclopaedia's for you. They're not suppose to put forward provocative new ideas. Just bland facts summarised from elsewhere. (And Wikipedia isn't a forum.) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, my point is that there are many, many things written on Wikipedia that are nothing more than opinion, even if they appear to be presented in a neutral, matter-of-fact fashion. Another way to put that is there is quite a bit of misinformation on Wikipedia and misinformation is, by definition, nothing more than someone's opinion. I'd like to suggest to you that rather than removing opinions which contribute to the understanding of a given subject, whether it's cognitive behavioral therapy, Igor Stravinsky's later pieces, or The Fourmost, that you focus on removing opinions which are dead wrong and serve to mislead and confuse. I'd also argue that a good encyclopedia doesn't sound like vanilla ice cream and that there is nothing bland about a well-described fact.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few examples, Escape Orbit, of the sort of thing that masquerades as neutral opinion on this site. It all comes from the same entry on Jimmy Webb.

Jimmy Layne Webb is an American songwriter. From his initial success with "Up, Up, and Away," "By the Time I Get to Phoenix," "Wichita Lineman," "Galveston," and "MacArthur Park" to his solo albums, Webb has had an influence on popular songwriting.

This sounds like a very neutral statement, but it is, in fact, someone's opinion. As written, the sentence reads as if Webb's solo records have had an influence on popular songwriting. This isn't the case. Who says they were influenced by Webb's solo albums? Who says that Webb's well known songs have influenced popular songwriting? In what way? The fact is that Webb's harmonic vocabulary is fairly inimitible and while he is a terrific songwriter, it's difficult to think of other songwriters who have been influenced by him -- in much the same way that it is difficult to think of songwriters who have been harmonically influenced by Joni Mitchell.

According to BMI, his song "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" is the third most performed song in the last fifty years.[1]

This is incorrect. By The Time I Get To Phoenix is the 20th most performed song according to BMI, not the third. There is a footnote for this so-called neutral fact in the Wikipedia entry, and indeed the website it links to claims BTTIGTF is the third most performed song. But a look at BMI's website reveals it is 20th, not 3rd.

In 1969, Glen Campbell continued the streak of Jimmy Webb hits with the gold record "Galveston" and "Where's the Playground Susie," quickly becoming the finest interpreter of Jimmy Webb songs.

Who says that Glen Campbell is the finest interpreter of Jimmy Webb songs? There's nothing wrong with thinking that -- I think so too -- but isn't it just an opinion? Whose opinion? Isn't it unattirubted in this entry? Judy Collins did a remarkable job singing The Moon's A Harsh Mistress. What about her? Frank Sinatra is no slouch in the interpreting department. What about his rendition of Didn't We?

As the decade came to a close, so too did Jimmy Webb's string of hit singles.

This is nonsense. Webb's string of hit singles ended long before the end of the 70s, assuming that the inclusion of "string" indicates a series of hits. In fact, Webb continued having hits in the 80s.

Beginning in 1970, Jimmy Webb recorded six original albums of his own songs: Words and Music (1970), And So: On (1971), Letters (1972), Land's End (1974), El Mirage (1977), and Angel Heart (1982). Despite the critical reception that followed each of these projects, Webb would never prove to be as successful a performer as he had been a songwriter and arranger. Despite his limited singing ability, each album was noted for its inventive music and memorable lyrics.[17]

Webb's debut album as a performer, Words and Music, was released in late 1970 to critical acclaim.

This is poorly written. Webb's debut album is mentioned twice within two paragraphs, rather than once. Why? I could go on, I suppose, but the point is each sentence I've quoted here has the seeming impartiality you describe and appears to be neutral. In each case, the facts are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are problems with other articles then please take the opportunity to fix them. They should not be used to excuse poor practice on other articles. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask it this way, Escape Orbit. When is something a fact, as opposed to an opinion? If I write that a song written by a Beatle sounds "Beatlesque" does it require my being able to cite a published author saying so in a book in order for this to be true? Published authors also get things wrong too. For instance, if an author states that Jimmy Webb's songwriting influenced the generation of songwriters who came after him, that would be a very pleasant, well-intentioned notion. But it would be wrong. If Webb's songwriting influenced many other songwriters, folks would be writing more harmonically complex and melodically interesting songs. One could quote the execreble biography of John Lennon written by Goldman as if it were true, but it would be a bad idea to take the book seriously. So, help me to understand. I read the link you posted but it still isn't clear to me what makes something an opinion and what makes something a fact.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability as a starting point - so broadly, yes it does 'require my being able to cite a published author saying so in a book in order for this to be true?' Also please sign your comments (4 x tildes ie. 4 x ~). Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the link. If I understand correctly then, the individual who removed another contributor's suggestion that The Fourmost piggybacked on the work of the Beatles was out of line because Bruce Eder writes that The Fourmost piggybacked on the Beatles' work on the All Music Guide website's write-up on The Fourmost. As this is a respected site, cited in the footnotes, shouldn't that contributor's suggestion about piggybacking stand?

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This sentence, presumably - The group never charted a single after the spring of 1964, despite an attempt in the summer of the 1966 to piggy-back once more on the Beatles' work with a cover of "Here, There and Everywhere.". Well, yes, as long as it is cited as such.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know Derek. I hope the contributor who wrote it will put it back without someone coming along after him and removing it. The only problem is that the sentence you've quoted is half wrong. What does one do in the case where a source can be cited and it's in accord with the rules here, but the information isn't factual? What I mean in this case is that the assertion the group never charted another single after the spring of 1964 isn't correct. I'm trying to understand why the notion of citing something that is factually inaccurate is well within the rules and isn't regarded as an opinion (even though it detracts from the entry) whereas the notion of offering an opinion that is accurate is not allowed, even though it adds to the entry?

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind John Lennon gave the band their first two Beatles song hits, and The Fourmost (who opened shows for The Beatles and were on their 1963 Christmas show bill) were also produced by George Martin and managed by Brian Epstein up to 1967, so any 'piggybacking' re 'Here There And Everywhere' (issued on Parlophone) in 1966 was likely done with the full knowledge of The Beatles - Paul McCartney later played piano on and produced their 1968 single 'Rosetta' issued on CBS Records.

NO ORIGINAL MEMBERS IN PRESENT GROUP

i went to see a group at a sixties festival in the uk a few weeks ago and they called themselves The Fourmost and whilst on stage they mentioned about recordings they had made in the sixties.

Now although this group were just about satisfactory in musicianship, i find out later that not one of them were in the original group and not one of them came from Liverpool and all of them were too young to have been anywhere the scene in the sixties.

I find this whole scam preposterous as the organisers proclaimed original bands.

I come on here to see if anyone else has been duped by these so called original sixties bands.

Its bordering on fraudulence and should be stopped. Tickets should not be sold to unsuspecting punters...disgraceful.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.109.14 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Most name bands today are basically Tribute bands because the Originals are long gone for one reason or another,

Any bets in 20 years time when we are all in or near the grave there will be still bands called The Swinging Blue jeans, The Searchers, The Four most still doing the rounds and saying this is a song we recorded in the 60s :so funny but sooooooo fraudulent. they are actually known in liverpool as THE FRAUDMOST — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHOOVERsv (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

All of which may well be true. However, please note Wikipedia:Verifiability applies, otherwise such comments, and moreover associated edits, are original research at best.

Also, please sign (~~~~) your edits.

Derek R Bullamore (talk)

I've just reverted a bunch of edits where references to the current band have all been removed. It would appear that someone disputes their right to be referred to as the same band. I, and Wikipedia, can only assume that the current band has legal ownership of the band name and are a continuation of the band. It's not up to us to decide otherwise. If there is a reliable sources that demonstrate otherwise, then we can consider the matter. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, please follow the Wikipedia rules. If you have a reliable source that the current band calling itself The Fourmost has legal ownership of the band name and are a continuation of the band, we will consider the matter. It's not up to us to decide otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.87.136 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Cites

If there is any issues with the cites added to this article, please explain them here. Reverting addition of sources and labelling it "vandalism" is both incorrect and also a breach of Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin Walsh

So there seems to be some dispute about Colin Walsh's past membership of this group. To summarise;

1. This article has a history of conflict of interest edits.
2. An IP number editor, claiming to be Colin Walsh, has added his name to "past members" (more than once).
3. Same IP number editor also has a history of childish vandalism to the article.
4. Same IP number editor then removes Colin Walsh's name.
5. A number of reliable sources, however, list Colin Walsh as a member. So I restore his name, suitable cited. MJE Management,Lee Clarkson and Spot On Entertainment, the band's own website for example.
6. A Single Purpose user account, Arty.Davis, then removes his name and cites, claiming he was "was never a full time original member of The Fourmost". What the difference between a "full time original member" and "member" is, is not explained. Fortunately, all Wikipedia requires is that he was a "member".

From this I suspect (ex)members and fans of the band are conducting a dispute on the Wikipedia article over what was apparently not an amicable split. So I would ask these people to take their argument elsewhere. Wikipedia does not re-write history to suit. The cites say that Colin Walsh was a member, so this is what Wikipedia will say until a better source demonstrates this to be inaccurate. If anyone has an sources that say otherwise, then please explain here. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A few more sources;

• https://www.bcmentertainments.co.uk/named-60s-bands-the-fourmost.php
• https://www.excursionesbenidorm.com/en/excursion-news/1517-benidorm-palace-the-fourmost-the-grumbleweeds-ticket-sales.html
• https://www.nwemail.co.uk/leisure/16432601.the-fourmost-head-for-millom-for-festive-set/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20191225203242/https://www.mjemanagement.com/the-fourmost/4591706847 - MJE Management page before it was updated

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20191227173503/https://www.spotonentertainment.co.uk/the-fourmost/ Spot On Entertainment page before that was updated. What a peculiar co-incidence! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)