Talk:Aaron Neville

Template:WPMusicians discography {{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low|LA=yes|LA-importance=low|NOLA=yes|NOLA-importance=mid}}

Influences

The article mentions a Cajun influence, but I don't buy it. No zydeco either. He's just one more unique New Orleans singer, where there are so many. Ortolan88 16:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the Cajun reference either. Did the author mean Creole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.220.2 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Spangles Banner

Good working adding the Worst Star Spangled Banner EVER part, I was about to.

attn: anons

Anonymous users: please stop reverting this article or removing information about Neville's Superbowl performance. As you can see from the discussion below, this issue has been settled. You are welcome to contribute to this article, but removing information repeatedly without explaining yourself on the talk page is considered vandalism. --NEMT 22:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

"Neville sang what is considered by many to be the worst rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner ever performed at a professional sporting event, alongside Aretha Franklin at Super Bowl XL in Detroit." This is NOT a POV statement, it is a factual statement based on the reaction from the millions of people who watched Superbowl XL. If the sentence said "Neville sang the worst rendition..." it could possible be considered a POV violation, however, the way it is now is simply expressing a known fact. Disagree? Ask anyone who watched it, there is a broad consensus it was a disgrace, and one of the worst performances in the history of professional sports anthems. Stop removing it or you will be reported for vandalism. 153.104.16.114 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I completley agree that it was a horrible rendition, but just saying many thought it to be the worst isn't enough. If you could site your sources somehow, then it could be allowed. I won't remove it until you respond, though. Howabout1 20:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the statement makes it difficult to find a wikipedia appropriate source. The quality of national anthems at sporting events isn't typically reported by news outlets, nor is there a central source of evaluation or standard rating scale. All we can go on is the apparent popular opinion, which clearly is of Neville's rendition of the anthem being absolutely terrible. The fact that the anthem was bad enough to be mentioned after the actual game is unique in its own right, as it's been completely forgettable at every previous Superbowl. 153.104.16.114 00:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Edited the page just before you edited this. I went ahead and removed it. Although I personally agree with the statement, my instict is that a statement like this absolutely needs to cite to well-known sources and probably also credit that opinion to said sources in its text...not just frame the opinion as a blanket statement. Interestingstuffadder 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely if this was such a bad rendition someone notable mentioned it. Dis Leno or Letterman make a joke about it? Did a columnist write about ir? There are always many reviews of the super bowl entertainment, did one say his singing was bad (i think i recall seeing one that said he was overdhadowed by Aretha and said his voice was soft or something along those lines, but didnt go far as to say he was bad). I am sure there is something out there. That source would be encyclopedic...allegedly widely shared opinions are not. Thus, until someone finds a source this just shouldnt be here. Don't get me wrong or mistake me for an Aaron Neville teoll, I think Neville absolutely sucks and I agree with you about the anthem. I want to see something about the anthem included, but understand that it must be properly cited. Interestingstuffadder 01:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned on ESPN several times, but it's largely been overshadowed by the events of the game (obviously) and clearly isn't something there are going to be news articles written about. The fact that multiple people on Wikipedia alone have expressed this view (as opposed to every other Superbowl anthem singer ever, post-performance) should be significant enough to show the trend. Do not revert it again. 153.104.16.114 02:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing this article, I immediately would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. -- timc | Talk 05:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid of that, I've reworded it to avoid any weasel-word conflict. I'll wait for Mahlered to link to one of the blurbs he mentioned. 153.104.16.114 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited that part out yesterday becuase it was a point of view that wasn't backed up properly. The rest of your edit was useful, so I guess that was a clue that I should have communicated with you about the issue (Sorry). Anyway, I fully agree that it was a horrible performance. So I just did a quick search and found plenty of columns stating how bad it was. It might only be a blurb in each one, but that's all that's needed, right? I'm going to bed right now, so I'll add something tomorrow (unless you get to it first). --Mahlered 06:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion reflects a consensus that the "worst rendition" section should be retained only if references are provided (if in fact there is a consensus at all). It is clear Wikipedia policy that statements of opinion must be attributed to some notable person who publicly had the opinion. "Everyone thinks" isn's enough. I will not revert now because obviously there are some heated passions, but more than two weeks have passed without these references being added and this statement really should not be here without citation. Interestingstuffadder 06:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A link to a google page previewing hundreds of independent blogs and new outlets reporting on how terrible the anthem was has been appended. No one, specific, story has been linked to. This is intentional - to show how widespread the belief of Neville's anthem being terrible is. NEMT 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for doing that. I think it will go a long way toward ending this silly revert war. Interestingstuffadder 06:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably I don't think it will. It is still edited by anons daily, and the folks at the protection policy page refuse to semi-protect it. NEMT 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put something POV like "considered to be the worst performance ever" you'll need to cite a Wikipedia:Reliable source, in accordance with the Wikipedia:Cite your sources policy. --DDG 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be grossly unfamiliar with the definition of POV. This is not an opinionated statement, it is a factual statement. It does not say the performance IS the worst ever, it says it is considered the worst ever, which, regardless of anyone's personal opinion on the subject, is a factual statement - as demonstrated by the massive number of independent sources stating this on the provided link. Do not revert the page again. NEMT 21:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

NEMT- the google search is not a valid citation. Unless you can provide an editorial or verifiable source that backs up this statement, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. If the performance was as roundly reviled as you claim, then you should have no problem finding a legitimate news site that agrees with you. I have removed it, and I ask that you do not re-add it without providing a real citation. Keep in mind that the WP:3RR rule is in effect. --DDG 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the 3RR is in effect, and if you revert the page again you will be cited for it. The link does verify the claim of it being considered a terrible rendition. As this is their opinion, it's not something likely to be reported by a major news outlet, though it has been stated on numerous personal websites and discussion boards (as demonstrated by the link). It would be impractical to provide external links to all of the smaller sites expressing this. NEMT 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just fail to see how a google for the terms "aaron neville superbowl anthem worst" proves anything about anything. For example, the third link brought up by the search is a Press Release, that was triggered because Neville said that Katrina was "the worst thing to happen to New Orleans". I have no problem with some kind of qualitative review of Neville's performance, but it has to be from some kind of real source. I actually don't think you'll have a problem finding some kind of editorial on the performance on ESPN in either a transcript, op/ed or some other mainstream source, in which case the criticism can be replaced, in the reference/citation style recommended for Wikipedia. I will take a look for a more authoritative source when I get the chance. --DDG 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have found a citation from Fox Sports criticizing his vocals. I am still looking around for more references, but if you find any, please add to the section with specific criticisms, and citations in the ref/note format. --DDG 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mean-spirited comments

I'm sort of at a loss as to what the appropriate course of action is for these. There have been a number of nasty quotes about AN by comedians, obscure rappers, etc. added to the pop culture section by named and anon users. I have been rv-ing them but I'm not sure if this is what is called for. They are mentions of Neville in pop culture certainly but they don't seem like the sort of things that should be in an encyclopedia article. Plus I had no idea that having a mole on one's face could inspire so much hatred. Josh 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a brief paragraph about mean-spirited remarks directed at Neville's mole to the Pop Cultural References. I felt that the presence of such meanness and such hatred should at least be mentioned, even if only to acknowledge that such stupidity indeed exists. I in no way meant to criticize Mr. Neville, as I hope the tone indicates. Any suggestions are welcome, but I feel as if something should be mentioned in the article (esp given the comment above). Townshonor 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I appriciate that, but there's a difference between things done in good fun and truly nasty stuff. The SNL stuff, for instance, and the comments on his voice I think qualify as "good-natured" or at least fair game for a celebrity. I agree that the mole stuff is over the line, though. I've edited that section to reflect my opinions on that. Thanks for caring about this though! I'm not a big fan of his but he's one of the great living R & B singers and deserves more respect than being bad-mouthed by wikipedia trolls. Josh 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user deleted the paragraph about Neville's mole, citing "who cares?" as a justification. The fact that such mean-spirited attacks exist, and that someone would say "who cares?" in light of having learned about them in the article, only further justifies the need for that paragraph in the article. Besides, MySpace isn't cited as a "scholarly source"...the bit about the mole suggests there is a MySpace group specifically to attack Neville...the reference is to the group, confirming its (disturbing) existence (don't people have anything better to do with their time than attack someone's mole?!?). The paragraph should stay. Standclub (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the discussion of Neville's Strong Religious Faith?

Neville discusses his strong faith at length in most every interview or public appearance I can recall. He's very very demonstrative (almost to the point of risking offense to secular audiences). It seems odd to me that this wouldn't be mentioned in the article. Also...

So look it up and ad it.  :) Josh (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See the remark below, hence the "..." at the end of the remark above...I don't know enough about Neville to get in the middle of editing his article, but it surprises me that nobody else has taken that initiative, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.65.57 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You know enough about him to suggest a way to improve it, so you know enough to edit it. Wikipedia motto= Be Bold!Josh (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs copy-editing!

The paragraphs discussing his various performances are really choppy in style and in phrasing...someone should take some time to overhaul the prose. I don't know anything, really, about Neville...it needs to be somebody with some background familiarity with Neville's work.

inaccurate musical information

Neville's debut was certainly not in 1966--he had cut a number of singles for Minit Records, going back to 1960's "Over You" (which was a minor national hit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.7.225 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of his appearance on Kenny G's breathless album? that's probably his biggest hit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.66.170 (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And his Adult Top40 hit with Linda Ronstadt on "Close My Eyes"? 216.196.68.210 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neville acting role

Neville had a rather lengthy cameo appearance as a New Orleans bartender in the 1991 movie "Zandalee," starring Nicholas Cage, directed by Sam Pillsbury. It's worth mentioning as it was a more serious attempt at acting than some of the TV appearances (although the movie was generally not memorable). Also, a statement appears on YouTube claiming that Neville was convicted of a felony crime. If true, the information should be included. Finally, YouTube also lists Ernie Neville, who's not listed as a band member in this article, on many of Aaron's songs. 58.8.16.44 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)