Talk:Terry Riley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terry Riley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

"While his early endeavors were influenced by Stockhausen, Riley changed direction after first encountering La Monte Young, in whose Theater of Eternal Music he later performed from 1965-66." Doesn't this need a source?? -Deniz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.8.195 (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I propose using the {{infobox classical composer}} that the Composers/Classical music Wikiprojects specifically designed for composers during the long and tedious debate here. This shouldn't be controversial, but a user has reverted two different people attempting to use this box on this article. If anyone would like no box at all, that's also fine with me. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this proposal. You don't put froward any supposed advantages of the box you wish to use, which has no additional properties or functions over the one it replaces, but lacks important features, such as a parameter for the URL of Riley's website. The RfC you cite does not mitigate against the use of the current box, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Antandrus's opinion. Indeed, there is a clear consensus to use the composers infobox which was designed specifically for this purpose. Is it necessary to continue this ridiculous, futile and timewasting feud with one user who disruptively continues to subvert articles? Would it not be simpler to go to ANI and have them resolve the problem once and for all? --Ravpapa (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such consensus here; there are two people (you and Antandrus) proposing a change, and one, me, supporting the status quo. The RfC which the classical music projects called to "resolve the problem once and for all" determined that "WikiProjects… do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article". It further concluded "Infoboxes are not to be … removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.". I note that you also, don't put froward any supposed advantages of the box you wish to use; and ignore the fact that it has no additional properties or functions over the one it replaces, but lacks important features, such as a parameter for the URL of Riley's website. It would be great if you could get ANI to stop Antandrus and co. from perpetuating their "ridiculous, futile and timewasting feud", but it is they who, according to that RfC summary, are "disruptively continuing to subvert articles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{Infobox musical artist}} has been in this article, without causing any drama, since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!) (I added Riley's URL in 22 April 2010). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposal. The more specific infobox is more appropriate, and will discourage the addition of irrelevant information by not providing fields for such details. --Deskford (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the second proposal (that is: no infobox at all). If the lede paragraph does not provide all of the relevant information, then it is in need of supplementation. Failing removal altogether, I favour using the infobox designated for the subject of the article. If the current lede is correct and Terry Riley is just a composer (which is contrary to my experience, BTW), then the composer infobox is the most appropriate one to use. Perhaps a second article should be created for the keyboardist and saxophonist of the same name.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support removing the infobox. I concur with Jerome Kohl. Neither infobox adequately expresses the nuances of Riley's career as both a composer and performing artist. Delete per WP:DISINFOBOX. However, I agree that the "composer infobox" is supperior to the musical artist infobox which Andy Mabbett is advocating. If we must have an infobox, the composer infobox is the lesser of two evils.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be a clear consensus (again) to remove the existing infobox, but no agreement on what to do instead: have no infobox altogether, or replace the existing one with the Composer infobox. I suggest we leave the decision to our sole dissenter. Andy, of these two alternatives, which do you prefer? No infobox or Composer infobox? Whichever you pick, I am sure that the rest of the editors here will line up with you.

This is a kind of test of your ability to work in collaboration with us. --Ravpapa (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the second proposal to remove the infobox altogether. I would be happy to support that, though I had assumed that this was a test case for the new composer infobox. --Deskford (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You (collectively) have yet to address the issue of the infobox parameter for Riley's website URL; or for that matter to explain why the current infobox is not suited to use for this article, about a performing musician. This is a kind of test of your (collective) ability to work collaboratively with people outside your project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some point to having a link to the subject's website in the infobox, or anywhere else at the top of the article? If there is, then doesn't it belong in the lede paragraph?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there some point to having a link to the subject's website in the infobox" - Yes; for the same reason that other things are included in infoboxes; and why the subjects' URLs are included in almost every other biographical infobox applicable to contemporary people, as well as those for other subjects: to summarise and collate key information, for the benefits of our readers and our content re-users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. As I understand it, then, all of this data should also be included in any decently written lede section, and is therefore redundant in an infobox. Under these conditions, which one should be deleted: the article's lede, or the infobox?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you imagine that to be the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just the random misfirings of synapses in my brain. So, what you are saying is that my assumption is wrong, and the data in an infobox should not be included in the lede section? Well, that would make sense, I suppose, but it still leaves open the question of what should be deleted from the lede section, and what from the infobox.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you imagine that's what I said, then yes, your synapses do give the impression of misfiring randomly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am certain that you said "I have no idea why you imagine that to be the case." Referring back to my comment preceding this observation, I see that I "imagined" that "all of this data should also be included in any decently written lede section, and is therefore redundant in an infobox." Apparently you believe this to be arrant nonsense, whereas it seems like sound reasoning to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle readers

The preceding exchange is proof the the enduring power of exigetical arguments over totally nonconsequential minutiae. This particular argument, dormant for almost a year, has suddenly flared up with a vituperance shared by the monophysite heresy, the ritual purity of sturgeon, and the dispute between the Hottentot and Tutu. Those issues, admittedly, are older than this one, and considerably bloodier. But, gentle reader, give us time, give us time. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not, Andy, a test of our ability to work with people outside our project. it is a test of our ability to work with one person outside our project. Honestly, we have tried. I think we have all been pretty patient and reasonable, have offered you ideas for compromise, have maintained civility in the face of acts that might have inspired ire in others. I admit, we have failed. We do not seem to be able to work with you collaboratively and productively. So, your objections notwithstanding, I am going ahead and replacing the infobox. If others feel strongly the the infobox should be done away with altogether, I will not oppose. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Path to Greatness

Q: How did an unknown avant-garde minimalist who surviving playing piano bars in europe get a recording contract with CBS records? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.81.116 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Terry Riley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I've assessed this as start-class. It obviously needs more depth, and an info box (hopefully with a photo) would be nice. --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Terry Riley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Reed Streams LP

How can the date of the Reed Streams LP be 1965 if Riley recorded this music on November 4 and 5, 1966? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]