Talk:Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tone

Parts of this article are written like a poetic personal review ignoring WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Reads more like a grade 5 school boy book report instead of an encyclopedia article. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

I see it fit to reverse the recent change in title of this album. Recently, it was moved to "Kinks part 1: Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround". The name is incorrect, and is a misunderstanding of the placement of words on the LP cover. I am looking at my LP right now, and the spine clearly states: "Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One". I am aware that there is not, nor was there ever intended insofar as I know, a "Part Two", but no matter how strange and nonsensical the title, this is the title. I do not want to go ahead with these edits without other opinions first. Please, speak up, what do you think? I.M.S. (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some links with the title:

Google Music: http://www.google.com/musicl?lid=WRwW3vuSPwE&aid=kNTmEGR6E-H

Rolling Stone Magazine: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thekinks/albums/album/217594/lola_versus_powerman__the_moneygoround

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Lola-versus-Powerman-Money-Go-Round-Part/dp/B000002KOW/ref=cm_lmf_tit_8

KindaKinks.net Website Discography: http://www.kindakinks.net/discography/showrelease.php?release=168

I.M.S. (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it is often referred to by the title "Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One" but is it not that that is the misunderstanding? I was going from the cover but the actual LP label which has the artist name (The Kinks) in the usual place and also the title - written as "Kinks Part I" and then in smaller writing "Lola Versus...". A later repress (mid 70's) has "Kinks - Part 1" (followed by "Lola...") and on the spines of both sleeves, it is written as "Kinks" (circle - usually seperates artist and title but also, the bands name was always written as The Kinks) "Part 1, Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround". As I see it, there would have been a "Kinks Part Two - Powerman blah blah blah". Obviously the original label could be wrong (as in the singles first issued as See My Friend and Day's) but unlike those mistakes, this wasn't 'corrected' after the first pressings. Are you possibly talking about the US LP? If there is a difference, surely the UK one would be the primary source?Retro junkie (talk)

Retro junkie - I'm not sure. I was hoping to find an official Pye catalog, that would tell us what was correct. Perhaps there is some major mix up in labeling? If you have an original UK Lola LP, then doubtless that is correct. My LP and CD (both US) say "Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One". Perhaps they're wrong. Another reason I changed the title is that I would think more people would find the page under what they more commonly know it as: Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One (hereafter called "LVPATM,P1"). Perhaps we should change LVPATM,P1 to "Part One, Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround". I hope some others will speak up with their opinions. On another note, you seem to be a great contributor to The Kinks community here on Wikipedia. I appreciate it, and it's great to have people like you adding more information for others to discover (including me!). I hope we can sort this all out, perhaps we can solve this title problem. I wonder if anyone else has debated this on Kinks forums? Here are some things I found through Google:

Ray Davies himself seems to refer to it as just Lola Versus Powerman and The Moneygoround in X-Ray. Search "X-ray Lola Versus Powerman and The Money-go-round" on google books.

Discogs lists it as "Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround" ("The Kinks" refers to the artist):

http://www.discogs.com/Kinks-Lola-Versus-Powerman-And-The-Moneygoround/master/101389 I.M.S. (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have the original 1st issue UK Pye LP - I'll scan the label in and link it. At the minute, I also have a later 70s repress (I bought it as an Excellent condition 1st issue from ebay as an upgrade... it isn't either and it's going back!). The reason I changed the title was because it is so often misquoted and probably a lot of the examples found have used Wikipedia (or another of the incorrect websites) as a source! These things tend to self-perpetuate! I very nearly started a talk topic here first but seeing there was hardly any discussion (and seeing as as far as I was concerned I had the original document), I just changed it. I did actually change every link to the page so that will all need undoing if we keep this title. So far as making the title the one people will search for, that isn't really any use because if people type in or search for whatever they think it is called, it will redirect to the main article. It is only recently Arthur has been moved to its correct full title (it was on as Arthur (album) for years).Retro junkie (talk)

Here's something I noticed: on my UK (Sanctuary re-release) CDs of Kinda Kinks, Something Else, and BBC Sessions, the artist's name is listed as just "Kinks" (no "the"). If you look on the cover of BBC Sessions, it just says "Kinks". I suppose it's interchangeable. I'd upload a photo if I could, but I don't think the Wikimedia Commons allows photos of "commercial packaging". I.M.S. (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I kind of forgot about this! Anyway... here are links to the original 1970 blue Pye label: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b202/mcgillalan/lolablue.jpg , the mid 70s issue purple Pye label: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b202/mcgillalan/lolapurple.jpg and the spine of the original Gatefold sleeve (used for both of these pressings): http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b202/mcgillalan/lolaspines.jpg All clearly have 'Part 1' before 'Lola...' and the labels obviously are using 'Kinks' as part of the title as 'The Kinks' is the band name in a different place. I would say it is pretty conclusive that the original UK album title was not 'Lola... Part 1' even if that is how it is written most often now. Retro junkie (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you wrapped it up in polysyllabic terminology and drew some vague but important-sounding parallels, the work you've done on this quirky little topic could be a reasonable dissertation for a Ph.D.! "Album Title Order during the Late Transitional Phase of the British Invasion" or something like that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to sound petty, but looking at those other spines in the photo, would this mean that Percy will be called "Percy - The Kinks"? I just think there are different ways of labeling an album. Lola...Part One is certainly not the only occurrence of labeling a Kinks album with just "Kinks" first, as I stated earlier. I just believe that it's another way of listing the author and title. Where on the spine of "Lola" does the word "Kinks" appear more than once? I think it reads /Author (Kinks)/Title (LVPATMP1)/.

See here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-Sessions-1964-1977-Kinks/dp/B000056IH0

And if you look on the spine it says "Kinks - BBC Sessions 1964-1977".

Anyway, thank you for uploading those photos. This subject puzzles me. Maybe we've dragged this out a little long? I really wish others would chime in, perhaps someone with professional knowledge of The Kinks. I've noticed all the books I've read on them seem to call it Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One. DavidWBrooks, do you have an opinion?

BTW, Retro junkie, you seem to have quite a collection going of The Kinks. That must have taken a while to put together!

Hope you have a good day/night. Sincerely, I.M.S. (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the current article title is fine because it has become the de facto "real" title (that's what it is on my LPs, which are from mid-70s in the US) regardless of how Pye or anybody else ordered words on packaging in early printings. We can mention the name question in the article, but it's really not worth more than that (IMHO) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good - I agree. Thanks! I.M.S. (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It was more the labels that I would say prove that 'Kinks' was part of the title. The spine was there to back up the fact that 'Part 1' was always before 'Lola' (and contradicting the original reason the title was changed back) but actually the fact that it only says 'Kinks' is unique to the original issues (all original LPs before and after) so was deliberate. It would have been pretty pointless to also put 'The Kinks' before it (see also LPs like Beatles For Sale etc - there is no need for another 'The Beatles'). Perhaps it was always wrong in the US and that is why it is so often misquoted, but this is a UK album. You're so right by the way that it doesn't deserve all this discussion! I still think the original UK title should be definitive but I suppose it isn't up to me! It would be good to find some kind of professional discussion of the different titles... Retro junkie (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to close this talk by saying that it's been a pleasure having this discussion with you. I've often had to debate with some not-so-nice people, and you're certainly an exception. I.M.S. (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GA

In the past few days I have been adding a lot to this article and I've tried to improve it the best I can. I recently nominated it for GA, as I was hoping to get some critical opinion on the article itself. However, due to the massive backlog for GAN right now, I will go ahead and withdraw my nomination. I'll probably take Lola versus Powerman to peer review, and, after I've improved the article with things suggested there, re-nominate it for GA. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is now listed for Peer Review. Please, if you are interested, feel free to leave feedback and comment on the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself a Kinks fanatic -although not as knowledgeable as you - but I found the detail of the articles that you have included a bit excessive. And the tone, if I may be so bold, sometimes sounds too much like a fanzine, e.g.: "The song begins with a barely audible cough, until a honky-tonk-like piano kicks in and the song picks up. It features prominent usage of Ray Davies' new National Steel resonator guitar." That's a level of detail, particularly the first sentence, which is excessive to an encyclopedia - and pretty pointless, to boot. Who needs to know that this one song starts with a cough? So my argument would be that you need to prune your additions back, probably by a third or so. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, David. The material I added to the article was from an even longer article I had been preparing for about a month in Notepad. I still haven't had time to review all of my material. I was trying my best to summarize each song with a few sentences, and oftentimes I would be at a loss as to what to add. At least they didn't end up something along the lines of "The Moneygoround is 1:47 long, making it the second shortest track on the album. It is also the eighth longest song on Lola versus Powerman. This is very interesting, as most tracks on Lola average out at 3:00."

I tried my best to avoid this. And yet, looking at many of the tracks' scrawny summaries within their own dedicated subsections reminds me very much of the branches on a scrawny sapling tree. Perhaps I should remove the track headings and meld them all together in a "tracks" section. I would also cut off some of the extra fat. This would make for a lot more concise and easy read - I might even go ahead and do that now. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I dunno, that "...second-shortest track..." entry is so ludicrous it has a certain weird appeal. There is far worse material in wikipedia, too!

Anyway, I think combining all the tracks - with the exception of Lola, perhaps, which is in a category by itself - would be an excellent start.

As a final note, it's startling to see a wiki editor ask for comments about a large body of their work and then behave rationally and responsibly when criticism is offered. I'm not even sure such behavior is allowed here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've combined the sections. I'm considering what to do as to making "Lola" a section of its own (if I did, all the songs below it would be part of that section, wouldn't they?). On another note, I really do appreciate your criticism/advice, as it has already helped me improve the article. I enjoy discussing with a nice person for a change! - I.M.S. (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)