|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boston (band) article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Boston (band):|
- 1 Brad Delp's Death
- 2 Changes
- 3 Expansion
- 4 disambiguation?
- 5 Sheehan or Sheenan?
- 6 Bandmembers
- 7 Brad Delp
- 8 Final Concert
- 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Boston1317.jpg
- 10 Gets kind of fannish.
- 11 Live Performances section deleted
- 12 The story about how the first album was recorded
- 13 Citations & References
- 14 Long time publicist for Boston
- 15 About the "CBS Lawsuit Section
- 16 Mother's Milk, origins of the band
- 17 Small Error
- 18 Old Version of 1985-1987 lawsuit story
- 19 About TimothyHorrigan's changes
- 20 Something I noticed on the official web site
- 21 A message from Tom Scholz (on Boston's Official Website)...
- 22 Revamp
- 23 Vandalism?
- 24 Related Bands
- 25 Classic Rock
- 26 Ron Patti?
- 27 Masdea's First Departure
- 28 AOR?
- 29 No mention of the Sony Special Products compilation CD
- 30 Band history and member tenures
Brad Delp's Death
Need to add details of Brad Delp's passing as they come available.
Need to find out future plans of Boston after the untimely death of Brad Delp. Boston is now lead singer less and given how integral Brad is to the Boston sound, it will be almost impossible to find a lead singer that fits the Boston sound.
I erased that tag above the article, because there is already information later on in the proper place of the article. (On a personal note, this saddens me, becuase Brad Delp was one of the best voices in music) Splent 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Should "than" in "More than a Feeling" be capitalized, per title case? Mkilly 01:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Atleast i think so. I Have every Boston CD. And Than Is Capitalized On The Debut CD And the Greatest Hits One. User:Tony Garcia 07:48 7 January 2005
Meteors rise? tilde 00:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I put a request for this page to be edited and expanded, as it is not that well formatted and Boston's album Boston is #11 on the List of best-selling albums in the United States (it went 17 times Platinum) ~~Omnimmotus
Boston's debut album isn't the best selling debut album of all time. Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill is. This is true, Boston was also passed by Whitney Houston's debut album in 1988 I believe.
Jagged Little Pill is her third album In Flames 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- the RIAA currently lists Jagged Little Pill at 16x platinum, and Whitney Houston's debut is 13x platinum. But neither Morrissette nor Hootie & The Blowfish can ever be eligible for "best selling debut" status, since they had both released small-label albums prior to their major-label debuts. ScottSwan 08:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In the article for the debut album Tom Scholz is credited with keyboards. The quality of the keyboard work is certainly good enough to deserve a mention on this page. --Art Raymond 12:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you do if an you think entry has been copied word for word from an article.The entry about Barry Gourdeau solo album that keep being filed that mentions that Tom Scholz asked Epic to pull the album looks like a word for word copy of an article I read called "Boston though Time". In fact the whole original entry seems to have been copied from this article.My fellow Boston fans and myself have manage to fix the problem,but that one entry keeps being refiled.Boston fan
I reorganized the article a bit, and separated the info to reflect the major events in the history of the band. I'm having trouble finding info on Fran Sheenan, anybody have info on what happened to him after Boston? I know he's been doing single gigs here and there but aside from that I haven't found anything. Eatabullet 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Fran Sheehan injured his hand in a car crash and is no longer able to play bass.That's all I know.
Fran is retired, plays occasionally with friends/ sits in at events... Lives in Northern VT, Swamscott, MA and Florida. He's well.
It does have at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_%28disambiguation%29 but it isn't linked properly. 220.127.116.11 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sheehan or Sheenan?
In the main article and in the discussion above both spellings are used. Only one can be correct! 18.104.22.168 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The proper spelling is Sheehan. We need more information on the Cosmos too!!!
- The Cosmos??? They're pretty much a non-notable afterthought in the Boston story. 22.214.171.124 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
An AFTERTHOUGHT??? Anthony Cosmo wrote 3 songs on Corporate America and Fran Cosmo was in Boston for 16 years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmaguitar (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the two occurrences of 'Sheenan' to 'Sheehan' in the main article. 126.96.36.199 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the musicians who were never official members of the band and cleaned up some of the membership dates. ScottSwan 08:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Reading between the lines of an open letter Tom Scholz sent to Mike Huckabee after two former band members appeared with Huckabee on the campaign trail, I see that there is a lot of conflict over who is or is not really a member of the band. Scholz, who evidently owns the trademark to the name (which he capitalized in the letter) BOSTON, feels that certain members of the old touring band are not stakeholders in the band as it exists today — and he also implies that their contributions to the old records were minimal. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Barry Goudreau has a personal bio on his own website BarryGoudreau.com, where he claims that he started the band, not Tom Scholz. (Goudreau speaks graciously about Scholz, however.) And Goudreau also says (much less controversially) that he played in various projects with everyone else in the classic version of the band (other than Scholz) both before and after those years. I suppose part of the dispute is whether the band Scholz joined in the mid 1970s is really "BOSTON" or not. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is explained in detail and with backup facts on www.bandboston.com and that information trumps everything on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Brad Delp was a great guy, and it is very depressing to me that he died. But, put a link to Brad Delp's page to explain the details of the suicide. The section about his death is too long here. --184.108.40.206 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
so is there, or is there not going to be a final Boston concert, if so when and where...
Fair use rationale for Image:Boston1317.jpg
Image:Boston1317.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 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Gets kind of fannish.
The sections "Tribute to Brad Delp" and "Innovatons and Styles" seem like they could have come from a fan site. There are definitely matters of opinion being stated as fact, and there seems to be a bit of fancruft, as well. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Under "Live performances" it says Boston developed a "startling ability" to match their studio quality during live play.
Some minor hit was "mysteriously omitted" from the greatest hits album. Was it mysteriously omitted, or just omitted, or might we just omit the mention of the mysterious omission?
Was the third album "finally released" in 1986, or was it simply "released?"
"Scholz and Brian May are well regarded for the development of complex, multi-tracked guitar harmonies." By whom? Citations are also needed in several places. Tiffany78 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this belongs here,but I think I should give you a heads up.There's been a development in the band Boston that could result in some problems here as well the Brad Delp and Tom Scholz articles.I just thought you should know.18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)BF84
"Delp's voice was the perfect match for Scholz' style, and like Scholz, Delp was a natural at overdubbing to ridiculous extremes. Delp laid down choirs of harmony vocals to complement Scholz' orchestra of guitars. And of course his super human range didn't hurt." Sounds like a fan boy wrote it. The whole early years section could use reformatting as well. Bobbit bob (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Live Performances section deleted
Someone will probably put it back in, but I think it needs to be taken out (or extensively reworked.) It was unreferenced and had a rather non-neutral point of view. Boston's early performances were "widely disparaged"... disparaged by who? It is definitely fair to say that critics did find that the original band's performances weren't quite as intricately layered as the studio recordings. But, really someone should track down some cites for 1970s reviews before saying that the band was "widely disparaged" as a a live act. It is also fair to say that Scholz never produced a live Boston album. The stuff about the 21st century version of the band being so much better live seemed to be mere pro-Scholz puffery, designed to (there's that word again!) disparage his ex-bandmates. For whatever it's worth, there are live bootlegs available (e.g., on YouTube) of the original band, and the band sounds pretty good, actually. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Scholz could certainly have a slightly more positive rationale (other than disparaging his ex-bandmates) for talking down the old band's live skills. He is trying to market a live tour by a version of the band which has no original members aside from himself... although Gary Pihl does go back pretty far. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, some of the reviews of the 2008 band have been less than positive. Tommy DeCarlo, in particular, has been described as having "the stage presence of a piece of plywood." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The story about how the first album was recorded
Is the legend about Scholz sending his (ostensibly, vastly less talented than Scholz himself) associates into the studio to noodle around and waste the label's money while Scholz worked secretly at home really true? It sounds a little Too Good to Be True somehow. Are there any objective sources for this, or this just a myth which the various parties have embellished over the years? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes this story is true, as confirmed by Scholz himself. Go here --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations & References
Long time publicist for Boston
This fellow swooped in this morning to make corrections leaving a note identifying himself as such. How do we know this is true? He comes in under an IP address, it could be anybody. I'm not sure how to handle something like this. If this man is for real his edits are likely true assuming good faith. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, gender was not identified, and I refuse to be labeled for using the word "himself" instead of "itself". ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
About the "CBS Lawsuit Section
The writers of the "CBS Lawsuit" section (including myself) make much of the issue of Tom Scholz being able to pay his lawyers, in spite of CBS's withholding of royalties. Do we in fact know that Tom's lawyers were on retainer the whole time? It is possible that they were on a contingency basis, where they do work for free in exchange for a share of the future winnings (if any.) It is worth noting (as I in fact did note) that Tom was able to start a high-tech company (which is an even more costly undertaking than suing a major corporation.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The main article about Scholz's company states that he founded it in 1980, before the lawsuits began. There are interviews where says he started it to be able to continue his career as an engineer. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Mother's Milk, origins of the band
The article really needs work. It needs citations, it needs to be rewritten, etc. But wholesale deletion of the band's former name, the early history of the band, who started it, etc., especially when such seems to occlude who started the band and how things came to be, should probably not be attempted without some consensus. Banaticus (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the consensus seems to be that Tom Scholz did join a band called "Mother's Milk" in 1970 plus or minus a year or two, and that Barry Goudreau was indeed the original leader of that band. And, everyone seems to agree that Brad Delp joined that band after Scholz did. Then in 1975, Scholz and Delp's band "Mother's Milk" was signed to Epic Records and changed its name to Boston. Everything else in between is fuzzy, although there is a consensus that Scholz spent years working on demo tapes. I personally am dubious about the implication that the band which was signed in 1975 had nothing to do with the earlier band. Goudreau's story may or may not be true, but it is simpler than Scholz's and seems to change less over the years. Also, if we believe Scholz, we have to assume that Goudreau is a pathological liar (even though the other members of the band seemed to respect Goudreau and back up his version of the story); whereas, if we believe Goudreau, we only have to assume that Scholz is a brilliant guy who is a control freak and who can also be an egomaniac at times (and Scholz clearly is all three of those things.) The fairest thing to do is to present multiple versions of the story. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why you don't bother with edit summaries? From now on, if I see anything doubtful and you haven't provided an edit summary, I'm going to revert it. You don't just go changing major portions of content without saying why. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The edits pertaining to the early years of the band are fairly unnecessary. Presenting "multiple versions of the story" will only serve to confuse readers, especially when both Goudreau and Scholz are 100% in agreement on the following facts:
1. Scholz joined Barry's band c. 1969
2. Delp joined this same band c. 1970
3. at some point this band became Mother's Milk
4. Scholz produced a number of demo recordings between 1969 and 1975, often using members of Mother's Milk
5. Many of these demo songs would later be re-worked and released on BOSTON albums
6. Mother's Milk existed through at least November 1973
Goudreau and Scholz may disagree on a few points, but those specific points should be addressed individually. Everything else is being blown out of proportion. To say that Tom Scholz joined Boston in 1976 is like saying The Beatles formed in August 1960 (when in fact they had been together for many months prior, under different names). Besides, even the 1976 date is inaccurate since the band was signed in 1975. And the member tenures seem to be edited inconsistently, with super-strict definitions for the original band members, but very loose definitions for Gary Pihl (he didn't actually join the band until 1987, although he did guest on one song in 1985) and Anthony Cosmo (not officially announced as a member until 2000). ScottSwan (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Goudreau's web site has a scan of an old newspaper clipping indicating that (as of Halloween 1973 when they played Salem State College) Mother's Milk was a regionally well-established band long before Scholz signed the deal with CBS. The lineup as of October 31, 1973 was (as shown in what appears to be a professional publicity photo) Delp, Goudreau, Masdea, Sheehan, and Scholz. This is over two years before Scholz's last demo tape finally got the band a contract. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed recent edits which alter the previous timeline of early Boston. The article now indicates that Brad Delp didn't join the group until 1971 (which directly contradicts Delp's own claims that he joined in 1969 or 1970), and furthermore claims that the band was first called "Freehold" before evolving into "Mother's Milk" (which contradicts statements by Delp and Goudreau that the band was Mother's Milk from the start). Also, a large chunk of this section seems to be copied directly from this website. Seems to me like that could be a copyright violation. ScottSwan (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed the following line as unsubstantiated and without citation: "Realistically, since Goudreau wrote no music for the Boston albums or demos, did not play at all on the final demos, played guitar on only two cuts of the debut album, did not produce or engineer the sound, and was not actually even mentioned in the original Epic Records contract, his claims would seem to be a stretch." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottSwan (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Boston's debut album was the best-selling debut album of all time; Appetite for Destruction sold 15 million copies, placing it in second place, because Boston sold ~17 million copies. The article has it the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see, that was the worldwide count, both albums sold around the 30 million milestone. Anyways, the facts are still correct. Boston was the best selling debut album in the U.S. selling at 17 million (as stated in the article), GnR in the U.S. sold 15 million. I'll think about adding some extra information.--F-22 Raptor IV 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Old Version of 1985-1987 lawsuit story
I made some cuts and changes to the story of Scholz's lawsuit with CBS. It is largely uncited and makes some questionable assertions about CBS President Walter Yetnikoff and other executives. It says that the lawsuit was motivated by "personal animosity," that they unethically stopped payments to Scholz solely to keep him from paying his lawyers and it implies that the CBS executives were so stupid they were "never aware" that Scholz was capable of the supposedly amazing feat of recording an album in his own home studio. (That seems bizarre since home studios have been around as long as studios have been around, and because CBS must have known that Scholz had a home studio and had in fact used it to lay down tracks for the first two albums. They also must have known that he owned a business which manufactured studio equipment.) It would be especially ironic if it was CBS who never considered the possibility of an artist using a home studio during the mid-1980s, since three of their most famous artists-- Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, and Bob Dylan--- had all already made hit albums using their own home studios.
Although lawsuits are not always logical--- the original version of the story contained a couple of glaring illogicalities. It assumes that the direct strategy for making someone record an album faster is to prevent him from recording at all. It also assumes that a plaintiff with a strong case and the good potential for a large cash payoff down the road can be prevented from filing a lawsuit merely by having his income cut off. This ignores the possibility of hiring a lawyer on a contingency-fee basis. (An earlier version also implied that Scholz founded SR&D in 1980 in reaction to having his royalties were cut off by CBS in the mid-1980s, which makes no sense unless time travel happens to be one of the technologies he is a master of.)
The previous version was:
While Scholz was recording new material for the third Boston album, and despite CBS president Walter Yetnicoff publicly professing to know that "Scholz was striving for artistic perfection,"  CBS filed a 60 million dollar lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Scholz for failing to deliver the third Boston album within the time they claimed it should be delivered. Years later, testimony by CBS executives clarified that the motivation for the suit was actually personal animosity by CBS' President Walter Yetnicoff against Scholz stemming from Scholz' refusal to turn in a hastily recorded album. The legal trouble continued to slow progress toward the completion of the next album, which was now being recorded in much the same way the original tapes were: in Scholz's basement studio. Joining Scholz in the album's development again were singer Delp and drummer Masdea, plus former guitarist Gary Pihl who joined the band in September 1985 to help finish the album and remains a member to this day.
While CBS was suing Scholz, Hashian and Sheehan brought another lawsuit against Scholz in an attempt to wrest partial ownership and control of the Boston name, paving the way to continue on without him once CBS prevailed and acquired all Scholz'assets. Gargantuan CBS had never lost such a battle against an artist, and was heavily favored to win. As the lawsuit played out in court, CBS opted to withhold royalty payments to Scholz in an attempt to leave him without funds to record or hire legal counsel to fight the lawsuit. CBS executives apparently never became aware that Scholz recorded Boston albums in his home studio, and could continue to do so on a limited budget indefinitely. However, Hashian and Sheehan evidently did become aware of this at some point (possibly because they continued to be friendly with Delp and Masdea, who had actually worked with Scholz in the home studio.)
Scholz was for some reason unable to find legal counsel willing to work on a contingency basis, but he had enough savings to continue paying his lawyers on a retainer basis, and he had started his own technology company on a shoe string, Scholz Research & Development, Inc., prior to the lawsuit, which helped Scholz to hire lawyer Don Engel to represent him against CBS. It also provided the technical manpower to bring his recording studio innovations to life. Scholz was able to show that, in fact, he never stopped working to produce the album for Epic, even though a severe back problem should have sidelined him. He kept recording in spite of the injury thanks in part to help from Phil, who built Scholz a wheeled contraption that allowed him to record guitar while laying on his back, and another that allowed him to mix and edit from a prone position. The lawsuit's first round was decided in Scholz' favor. This allowed him to shop around the third album to other record companies.
Even though Walter Yetnikoff warned other record companies to keep their hands off it, MCA agreed to release the third album, appropriately titled Third Stage. CBS let it be known that if another major label wanted Boston's contract, CBS would settle for $900,000 and $.25 an album. When MCA decided to take on the album, CBS brought a new case against Scholz and MCA, asking for a preliminary injunction to freeze the deal. The judge decided against CBS and Third Stage then belonged to MCA.
About TimothyHorrigan's changes
I got a rather peevish message from "TheFoundersIntent" who accused me of (amongst other things) not signing my contributions to the discussion. I did sign my previous discussion posting---- but my 4 tildes ended up at the end of a long blockquote. As for my edits to the main article, I am trying to make it more encyclopedic and fairer to all parties. I am also trying to put the undisputed facts at the center of the piece: this article has a tendency to collect Scholz's rants (sometimes quoted, sometimes paraphrased) against his ex-colleagues. I still haven't figured out how to connect Mother's Milk with the "classic" Boston lineup. It seems clear that Goudreau, not Scholz, founded Mother's Milk and that all five members of Mother's Milk were in Boston at one time or another. But of course it is not clear whether or not Mother's Milk is Boston under a previous name-- or whether it was an entirely separate band. I think the best thing to do is to, as I have done, is just to point out that Goudreau, Scholz, Masdea, Sheehan & Delp were all in a successful band called Mother's Milk and later were all in Boston--- without making too big a fuss over whether we are talking about two bands with the same membership or one band with two names. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Something I noticed on the official web site
Tom Scholz described the 2008 summer tour as the most fun he has had in his "32 years with Boston." That means he is saying Boston started in 1976--- even though he was previously in a band called Mother's Milk which very coincidentally just happened to include 3 of the other 4 members of the "classic" Boston lineup along with a 5th musician who was in later versions of Boston. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tom's official stance is that "Boston" is a completely separate entity from all the other groups that preceded it, even if those groups featured the same members (or played the same songs). As far as Tom is concerned, "Boston" did not exist until late 1975. ScottSwan (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
A message from Tom Scholz (on Boston's Official Website)...
I notice a lot of discussion about Mother's Milk and some other details revolving around Boston's history. Well, here's a "letter" that Tom just put on the Boston website that deals quite a bit with those details (he also even makes mention of Wikipedia...!). It is quite lengthy, and for that, I apologize. But many of the discussion points that are being made right here on Wikipedia, he covers in this letter. Maybe what he has to say merits discussion as well:
" BOSTON shows, myths, and truths by Tom Scholz
In spite of recent misleading ads claiming BOSTON appearances and even reunions of original members, BOSTON is not touring or performing this year. While we're off this summer, several of our members are involved with other projects that are worth catching if you can:
Kimberley Dahme is releasing her new CD "You Make Me Believe" this month and has many solo appearances scheduled. Gary Pihl contributed writing, performing and production help to her effort, and Jeff Neal and I also did a little playing on the album. Gary will be joining Kimberley at several of her performances ... check out her tour page: www.kdsongs.com
Michael Sweet is touring with Stryper this fall in support of Stryper's new album "Murder by Pride." The tour marks their 25th Anniversary. Gary Pihl and I hope to catch up with them to sit in at some point. www.michaelsweet.com
Also, Gary Pihl is compiling a series of good quality video clips from live shows soon to be available here on bandboston.com, watch for it!
We are hoping to embark on another major BOSTON tour next year. Meanwhile, I am finally back working to complete the next BOSTON studio album with some help from the gang, and I think you are really going to like it!
But I'm telling you it's not BOSTON...
As many of you know, numerous dates have been announced for the band Cosmo, but have been promoted using the name, logo, or even the recorded music of BOSTON, which may have confused some as to whether BOSTON would be performing.
Fran Cosmo has explained that he was unaware that BOSTON's name, logo, or music were being used by his agent to promote Cosmo as BOSTON. While most of it has stopped, there are still some problems with unauthorized use of the name BOSTON in connection with some scheduled Cosmo performances.
Cosmo's extensive covers of older BOSTON songs recorded prior to Fran's involvement raised some eyebrows, but as long as these shows are not promoted in a misleading way using BOSTON, we see no problem with their performance of a few BOSTON songs, and wish them luck with their summer tour.
25 Year Reunion???
Unrelated, there have been extensive promotions for a band called Ernie and the Automatics fueled by the heir to the Boch car dealer fortune, Ernie Boch Jr., claiming a 25 year reunion of former original members of BOSTON.
Oddly, the two musicians referred to in the ad campaign have appeared together repeatedly over many years, so the 25 year reunion claim is a bit strange. While they did indeed play live with BOSTON about thirty years ago, the claim that they were "original members" is questionable.
There were only two performers signed to make the debut album in the original Epic Records agreements, Brad and myself. Possibly because we wrote all the music for the album, recorded the six demo songs that landed the deal, produced them in my basement, and funded all of it from my Polaroid salary.
Between the two of us, Brad and I went on to physically record nearly 90% of the actual studio tracks for the BOSTON album. On most of the songs, once the drum track was laid down, all the instruments and vocals you hear were recorded by just the two of us, painstakingly overdubbing each part to create the recorded "band" that so many have become familiar with.
The only other person who helped make those demos for the resulting album was drummer Jim Masdea. Masdea, forced out by the management Brad and I had signed with in 1975, was in fact the drummer for every demo I sent to record companies back in the 70's. The same manager who vetoed Masdea was also responsible for the back cover of the debut album, with the famous pic of five musicians, which by some coincidence, also omitted Masdea's performance credit from the initial pressing run.
These ads almost seem to imply that including two musicians from our 70's tours on an unrelated CD somehow make it a BOSTON reunion. After this much time, is it really necessary to resort to something like this to get attention?
Mother's Milk goes sour...
On the subject of misleading promotions, a few months ago Wikipedia reported some outlandish claims purportedly made by Barry Goudreau based on a fancifully twisted version of Mother's Milk as the origin of BOSTON, and cited Goudreau's website. While I apologize for dwelling on ancient history, this has gained some traction in the music press and finally warrants a response. Elements of the story have also persisted on other Wiki pages.
According to the Wikipedia post, "The way Goudreau tells it, when he was a student at Boston University, he led a band called "Mother's Milk". One day, a musician named Tom Scholz joined after answering an ad in a local weekly newspaper. Scholz was a recent MIT engineering graduate who worked at Polaroid who was primarily a keyboard player, but who rapidly developed as a guitar player after joining Goudreau's band. After years of practice in Scholz's home studio with singer Brad Delp and other local musicians, Mother's Milk evolved into what we know as Boston, and Scholz took over the leadership of the band. In 1976, after years of having their demo tapes rejected, the band got signed to Epic Records after (in Goudreau's words) Scholz "refine[d] the songs and recordings to a point where they could no longer be denied."
This would be true except for a few minor details: Mother's Milk was never led by Goudreau, he wasn't a student at BU when Mother's Milk existed, I didn't meet Goudreau in Mother's Milk, there was never a newspaper ad for a keyboard or guitar player for Mother's Milk, I didn't join Mother's Milk, Mother's Milk did not practice in my home studio, it did not evolve into the band BOSTON, it was not signed to Epic Records, and most of the songs on the eventual demo that Epic liked had never been shopped to a record label before, because most of them hadn't been written yet. Other than that, totally accurate.
The Wikipedia blurb went on to say "According to Goudreau's story, he was the founder of the band Boston— and he, Delp and Scholz were more or less equal contributors to the band's emergence."
Realistically, since Barry Goudreau wrote no music for the BOSTON albums or demos, played on only two cuts of the entire debut album, did not play at all on the six demos leading to the Epic Records contract, did not contribute financially to recording the demos, and was not even mentioned in the contracts for the original Epic Records deal, these claims would seem to be a bit of a stretch. (For more on this check the BOSTON Remaster and Greatest Hits Remaster CD booklets.) Of the many musicians who have toured with BOSTON, Goudreau's run as a member of the band was the shortest.
Wikipedia just won't go quietly...
We corrected the Wikipedia BOSTON history page, only to have it once again deleted by someone, and replaced with another bogus story involving Mother's Milk. This replacement story was nearly as inaccurate as the first one, but I have to give them credit for coming up with a new set of fairy tales.
Wikipedia claimed "More Than a Feeling," "Peace of Mind," and "Rock and Roll Band" were recorded in my early demo sessions (that would have been 1971), but a simple check of the copyright records would show the songs weren't written till years later. I really enjoyed playing with Fran Sheehan in BOSTON, but Fran never played bass for Mother's Milk as Wiki claimed. Contrary to other Wiki warped factoids: Epic never insisted that the demo tapes be rerecorded with a full band for the debut album (in fact, they weren't), only that producer John Boylan be involved, and there were no "other local musicians" working with me to record the Epic demo besides Jim Masdea and Brad Delp.
I'm beginning to think you shouldn't believe what you read on Wikipedia.
Goudreau's website now has no reference to Mother's Milk, but attempts to link him with the founding of BOSTON along another twisted path... read on.
The back story to Mother's Milk...
I couldn't join Mother's Milk, of course, because I started the band. It was a last desperate attempt to get my original music heard by performing it live. Besides putting up the money for equipment and promo ads, I drew the band logo, laid out the promo ads, built a crude lighting system for the shows, and wrote all the original material performed by the band. As you might imagine, I did also lead the band. I hate to admit I was the one who thought up that God awful name after hearing the term on a TV show one night. I wish people had fixated on Middle Earth instead, which was the band I started before that, with a much less embarrassing name.
I actually met Goudreau years earlier in 1970, my last year at MIT, in a band called "Freehold" that was led by a fellow MIT student. I'm not going to debate whether Goudreau led that band or not, but it was the MIT dude that sang most of the lead vocals, provided the practice space, found the gigs around campus, named the band, and wrote most of the original material we played - make your own call.
Freehold played one very important role in the formation of BOSTON; it introduced me to drummer Jim Masdea. Jim was the first musician I ever recorded with, and he played drums on nearly every demo I ever made.
Years later, Mother's Milk would hold no such distinction. It was the last straw in a string of dismal failures that made me give up on working with groups. In addition to Brad and Barry, I had invited Jim to play drums and Frank Cremoni for bass. Brad quit early on, and was replaced by a guy who called himself "Rabbit." I think that might have actually been his whole name.
Because the sole purpose of forming Mother's Milk was to play my songs live, I had provided all the original music for Mother's Milk, and spent some serious cash getting it started. When I finally threw in the towel some time after Brad left the band, Mother's Milk mercifully ceased to exist.
Finally free from the distractions of other musicians, and the ordeal of playing local gigs, I went back to my basement studio to write and record, on my own. To get the sound and style I had been searching for, I gave up the idea of involving other players in my recording, with the exception of my old friend Jim Masdea. After purchasing some "new" used equipment, I finished several new songs, and made one last set of six demo recordings with Jim playing drums, and me, myself, and I playing everything else. Now at the end of my bank account, I knew this would be my last shot.
After completing instrument tracks for 4 of the new songs, I got back in touch with Brad and invited him to sing on my new tapes, hoping he would forgive me for the Mother's Milk disaster. He laid in all the vocals the same way I recorded the instrument tracks, laboriously overdubbing them one part at a time. These four songs resulted in three major labels contacting me, and led to a management contract. The final two songs, one of which was "More Than a Feeling," resulted in Brad and I being signed to Epic Records.
The real point here is that Mother's Milk, regardless of who was responsible for it, really had nothing to do with the music later released by BOSTON. The songs played by Mother's Milk were songs I wrote at home, and brought to the practice for the others to learn. The six demo tunes later sent to the labels were never recorded by, or pitched as a "band." Brad and I were not viewed as just founders of a band, but as the actual act, and as such, only he and I were named on the contract offered in 1976. The two of us eventually went on to write all the songs for the first two BOSTON albums.
I think people want to believe that things grow or morph into something grander as a natural sort of progression. But sometimes something really cool happens because there is a completely new start, divorced from what was tried before. Such is the case with BOSTON, created in a basement with a beat up tape machine by a couple of unknowns experimenting with their songs.
Because Barry was not involved in making the demos that landed the Epic deal, and played such a minor role in the debut BOSTON album, referring to Mother's Milk as somehow being the forerunner of BOSTON would enhance his image. He did play in Mother's Milk after all, and that would provide him a more plausible connection to the origin of BOSTON. Epic publicity latched on to the Mother's Milk angle, and I did my best to ignore it over the years until it faded into oblivion, only to now be exhumed like the dreaded mummy. Possibly Barry believed that it would bolster his claim of having somehow been a founder of BOSTON, now that Brad is gone.
Disbanding Mother's Milk allowed me the freedom to finally create the sound and many of the songs that would eventually be called BOSTON, including "More than a Feeling," "Peace of Mind," "Rock and Roll Band," and "Something About You" (titled "It Isn't Easy" on the demo), without the typical art-by-commitee influence. Jim Masdea and especially Brad contributed greatly, but there was no band, and I actually always worked individually with Brad, or Jim.
To avoid having the recordings sound rigid due to the lack of a live band, I closed my eyes each time I played a part and imagined a sea of fans in a live concert, a habit that stuck with me on stage after it actually became a reality. The illusion that the demos were recorded by a band was so convincing that Brad thought they were, until years later.
Somewhere along the way, some self appointed music biz marketing expert decided to promote BOSTON as if it were a "normal" group, and as Cameron Crowe pointed out in his Rolling Stone piece a couple of years later, there was a conscious effort to downplay my importance in making the recordings of what was now perceived as a band.
Fast forward to today...
Currently on Barry Goudreau's website, a much different account of the origin of BOSTON appears, in which the fantasies of the Mother's Milk story on the old Wiki page we keep correcting are absent, but new theories conveniently link him as a force behind BOSTON in a more subtle way.
Barry's website now claims that "we" were signed to Epic Records in 1975, (but he wasn't)...That "we" were looking to record demos (but only I had written music, booked studio sessions or paid for them)....That "we" put together a demo tape (but I don't remember anyone else figuring out arrangements, sweating over a mixing console, writing songs, signing checks, running off copies, sending letters, making long distance calls, addressing dozens of mailing envelopes, or digging up record label information). Barry and I did drive to New York once though.
Speaking further of these demos, his bio still insists that I continued "to refine the songs and recordings to a point where they could no longer be denied," which is still untrue. As explained above, I didn't buff and polish some old demos made with outside musicians. Isolated in a basement, I wrote new songs and made new recordings, with only Brad and Jim's help, to come up with the music that convinced Epic Records.
Barry also mentions that "since Tom had a real job, he began to finance it" [recording demos]; he doesn't mention that I continued to pay for all of it.
There are other inaccuracies, but it is true that the demos I made back when I included Barry's playing were all unanimously rejected. This only changed after I decided to record the instruments myself - not that Barry wasn't a good guitar player, I just found it impossible to get the feeling, style, or emotion I was striving for without doing it myself.
Why I don't like to look back...
Concerned about egos, back in 1976 I naively suggested to Brad that we pay Barry Goudreau a share of the record royalties equal to ours, not just for the two cuts he played on, but for every song on the album. After performing with BOSTON a scant three years, Barry left to pursue a career separate from mine, but he kept his share of royalties for all the songs he was not involved in recording, and has continued to collect it for the last thirty years. Accepting money for someone else's work is one thing, taking credit is quite another. " --Izzy (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this article in a few months. I am flattered that Tom Scholz went to so much tribute to refute what was in part my work, including quoting a paragraph of my own verbiage. I stand by what I (along with other people) wrote: I was accurately summarizing what Barry Goudreau and others have said. I do not know Goudreau personally, but I do have reason to believe that Goudreau is a reasonable person. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
For being such a great and notable band, this article is terrible. It is very poorly written, needs cites, and needs better formatting. I am working on a complete rewrite/revamp of this article to hopefully promote it to A class or GA status. If anybody has any magazines that have articles in them, please post some info here (or add it to the current article), so that it can be added. Or if there are any specific WP:RS' that should be added. Thanks TheWeakWilled 02:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I made extensive changes to the article which were all cited and all based on reliable sources, including Tom Scholz's own writing. I thought I was being fair. They were all revreted as vandalism? Could someone explain why they thought I was a vandal? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please link the sources here. The diff pages are messed up, so I can't tell if your edits are revert-worthy. I don't see how barrygoudreu.com is not a WP:RS though. Also, can you help me work on the style section, including sources? That's really all we need for this to go to peer review. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I reduced the pro-Goudreau content some: probably not enough to satisfy WhiteLitr. And I fixed some of the sources. Hope that helps. I fully expect to be reverted again by WhiteLitr. The only fact left in the section which is not in Scholz's own writings (or in neutral materials) is that Mother's Milk was a regionally popular live act. Hopefully Scholz & Whitelitr will have no objection to having good things being said about the band.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The reverts were made because you did not provide anything beyond a website (barrygoudreu.com) that is known to contain factual errors and personal opinion of the site owner. It does not not meet the criteria in WP:RS. I will continue to revert these edit until you can provide reliable sources. The facts presented are wrong, even to what I said to you about Tom Scholz. Whitelitr (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I reverted timothy's edits. barrygoudreau.com is NOT a reliable source. He has made false and defamatory statements about Tom Scholz and BOSTON and has been legally challenged in court on statements that he has made. To me, that makes for a very poor source; I certainly don't think that provides good material for Wikipedia. The article as written PRIOR to timothy's edits was factual and correct. Jane (126.96.36.199)
Well, Scholz has also been "legally challenged" in court many times over the years: he has been in court with someone or other over one thing or another literally since the band started. Most of those suits were vigorously challenged by the other side. That doesn't mean that everything Scholz says is false. Likewise, not everything Goudreau says is false. Ironically, my recent version of the story reflects pretty well on Scholz: more so than the version which his supporters keep reverting to. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The difference here is that Tom has never been challenged in court due to defamation of character - Barry and others close to him HAVE been taken to court for this. Again, a source that has made defamatory statements is NOT a reliable source. Reverting your edits again. Jane (188.8.131.52)
I am aware that in 2007 Scholz sued Micki Delp & Connie Goudreau (Brad Delp's ex-wife and Barry Goudreau's spouse) for harassment. I was not aware that the case was decided in his favor yet. I was aware that Scholz's suit sounded frivolous on the face of it.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the suit is very far from frivolous. There is more than ample evidence to back up this lawsuit. The statements that were made by the defendants (most notably the wife of Barry) are very damaging. Additionally, Barry has been taken to court over trademark violations for his attempts to portray himself as a member of BOSTON, even though he has not been a member of the band for almost thirty years. (In fact, his stint in BOSTON was only four years long.) Given the fact that Barry continues to violate Tom's trademark of the name BOSTON and given Barry's wife's violent opposition to Tom, using www.barrygoudreau.com as a source is clearly in violation of WP:RS. Reverting your edits. Jane (184.108.40.206) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Have to agree with the IP revert here. The goudreau fanpage version should be avoided at all costs. His homepage is not a reliable source. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've reverted the edits due to the unreliable sourcing. RighteousTruth (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your edit had fewer cites than mine. The version you deleted had no references to Goudreau's web site at all: all info was from neutral or Scholz-related sources.
- My edit was a manual revert of your edits. Your version has eliminated a great deal of facts that had clear, verifiable references (including a published article by writer Cameron Crowe). There is no justification for removing information that is factual and has references that meet WP:RS (which barrygoudreau.com does NOT). Reverting your edits again. RighteousTruth (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Check the refs: BarryGoudreau.com was NOT cited in the most recently reverted edit, which is a shame because Goudreau has some pithy quotes which would have enlivened the story. Sorry about the Crowe article being deleted: I didn't mean to take it out.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have completely removed the first three paragraphs of this article, which contained factual information that was sourced from BOSTON's official website, as well as from allmusic.com There is no reason to remove this information whatsoever - I am leaving this information in and reverting your edits. RighteousTruth (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to make an already ridiculous statement even worse, but I must say that your last statement is not at all true. Allmusic.com, BTW, is not a definitive source, although it is useful. I am not sure why it was so terrible for me to use BarryGoudreau.com on a limited basis as a source when we all used BandBoston.com extensively. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have removed paragraphs 2 and 3 from the article, which contain factual information that is sourced from the BOSTON official website. There is no legitimate reason for removing this information. Additionally, you have "moved around" information in the first paragraph - you have not rewritten it per se, merely moved information around. Your edits of the first paragraph do absolutely nothing to enhance the article and, in fact, make it worse. If you wish to add a quote by Brad, great - do so - but stop removing factual information from the article and stop useless rewrites. RighteousTruth (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Let me set up the scenario here: I'm at Boston (band) page in Wikipedia and I click on Jim Masdea. I get sent back to Boston's (band) page. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, RTZ, Orion The Hunter and Ernie and the Automatics (approximately 30 years later) were formed after former members of BOSTON had signed settlement agreements and were compensated to not use the BOSTON trademark and copyrights to promote their personal projects. Therefore, those bands do not qualify as "related" projects. Only Tom Scholz and the late Brad Delp were signed to the recording contract as BOSTON and deemed "original" members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if they weren't allowed to use the Boston trademark, on wikipedia, bands are considered related if two or more members of one band are in another. I'll look into which bands on "Related Bands" have more than one Boston member in them, and I'll change it later today. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If knowone doesnt know they are most notable as being classic rock, which should definetly should be added to there genres do to they are very popularly known as classic rock and always considered that when talked about, wrote about, or interviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorHawke (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I was checking a competing open-source encyclopedia, and it mentioned an early lead singer named Ron Patti who has been totally written out of the standard Boston history. I don't think even Barry Goudreau mentions him.
formed when Tom Scholz and Barry Goudreau (guitar), Jim Masdea (drums) and Ron Patti (vocals) put together the demos that were to include the seminal 'More Than a Feeling'. Masdea and Patti were soon replaced by Sib Hashian and Brad Delp respectively and, after a number of false starts and the addition of bassist Fran Sheehan, the first album made it to vinyl.
This is a huge departure from the official story, where the band began as a trio of Scholz, Delp & Masdea— with Masdea being kicked out of the band just before the record contract was signed, for reasons which are never made very clear. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't tracked this down to a reliable citation, but I know I have seen interviews where Masdea says he left voluntarily because he didn't think the project was going to amount to anything. He was a few years older than Scholz & Delp and he had a family to support. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- As of late May 2011, Tom Scholz has written Goudreau back into the official story of how the band got started. Scholz, in what appears to be liner notes for a new edition of the first album, currently says the group started out as a quartet of himself, Goudreau, Delp & Masdea. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Masdea's First Departure
I have made some changes which will probably be reverted. The main issue was Jim Masdea's departure from the band in 1975, just as the record deal was signed. The article used to say, based solely on the official band bio written by Tom Scholz:
- "Upon signing with Epic Records in 1975, the management company insisted that Jim Masdea be replaced.
(It was unclear who did the signing with the record company and who did the insisting.) Brad Delp and Fran Sheehan have both told interviewers that Masdea lost interest in being Scholz's drummer once the demo tape was finished: he was more interested in playing keyboards and in working on his own music. I also wanted to clarify a point which is important to Scholz's story: i.e., that only Scholz & Delp signed the contracts with Epic Records and Pure Management. The other guys were added later. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given the fact that the contracts touched off litigation which is now in its fourth decade, the cynic in me wonders if Masdea had to be replaced because he objected to the terms of those contracts. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am amazed Whitelitr hasn't reversed my edits yet. He/she/it seems to exist for the sole purpose of reversing everyone else's edits to this article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
And you, Mr Horrigan, seem to exist to insult others and fill edit logs with your name. People, from MANY different pages across Wikipedia have time and time again asked you to properly source your edits, stop with the POV issues and stop making frivolous edits, yet you continue to do so. If you are that uncomfortable making one edit instead of three or four at a time, you should practice in the sandbox.Whitelitr (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"The contracts touched off litigation which is now in it's fourth decade" Interesting but inaccurate statement. If you are referring to current litigation, it has nothing whatsoever to do with those contracts. And I have also removed the inaccurate statement that Brad said that Masdea left voluntarily. The article does not say that and, until you have a verifiable source that does say that, it does not belong in the article.RighteousTruth (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did read the Miller article, RighteousTruth, and I think I interpreted the article reasonably. I also think your edit tightened up the article. The current version emphasizes that Scholz & Delp were the only original members of the signed band, and that it was the managers (not Epic) who insisted Masdea be fired. No particular reason has been given by Scholz or anyone else (aside from Delp) for that firing. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"AOR" originally meant "Album-Oriented Rock" not "Adult-Oriented Rock" and it was a radio format more than a musical genre. Boston was in any case known for its hit singles more than for its albums. "Progressive Rock" is a related label which would fit them a little better. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No mention of the Sony Special Products compilation CD
Neither the Boston page nor the Boston discography page mention the cd put out in 1998 by Sony Music Special Products. I'm guessing it may be a sore spot with Tom Scholz, but I think it deserves at least a side note mention. I only have the cd itself (found it in some stuff one of my kids left when they moved out), so I don't have the "liner" notes or anything. Title: BOSTON Subtitle: Rock and Roll Band Track listing: 1. More Than a Feeling 2. Rock & Roll Band 3. The Journey 4. It's Easy 5. A Man I'll Never Be 6. Smokin' 7. Hitch A Ride 8. Something About You 9. Party 10. Don't Be Afraid (spelling and capitalization are verbatim) copyright 1998 Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Given the history with Scholz/Boston and CBS/Epic/Sony, there may be some interesting story behind this CD. At least the ownership and licensing details. But it probably was released merely for Sony to make some money. I'm no expert on either Boston or Wikipedia, just curious. KO'Connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
edited to fix a couple of typos KO'Connor
Band history and member tenures
I looked at the Members section, and it begins in 1976. It begins as thoguh this were a five peice band. This particular section does not mention that Tom, Brad and Jim Masdea were the original artists who worked on the demos in 1974-5. In fact, it looks as thoguh Masdea joined for the first time in the 80s. And it sugests Barry, Fran and Sib were all founding members, which was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- The pre-history of the band is a matter of huge controversy. Suffice it to say that Scholz made music with several future members of Boston throughout the years between 1970 and 1976, long before he and Delp signed a contract with Epic Records. The demo tapes which led to that contract were entirely Scholz's work, aside from Delp's vocals and Masdea's drums. And Delp's was the only other name on the original recording contract. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Crowe, Cameron (August,1978). "The Band From The Platinum Basement",Rolling Stone.
- Ahern vs. Scholz
- CBS vs. Scholz
- CBS vs. Scholz