Talk:The Standells

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Rock music/Garage rock taskforce
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music/Garage rock taskforce, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music/Garage rock taskforce articles 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.


They were from Los Angeles, NOT Massachusetts! Dirty Water was not written by them

Both now corrected - although the article needs more references.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest[edit]

Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say we have another one:

After my clean up, both the above editors did a bunch of edits that undid a lot of it. I've reverted them. But, always aware of WP:3RR, I request that other editors keep an eye on. I don't think it's necessary at this stage to ask for protection. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we can add another to the list, judging by this edit. No other contribs except to this article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest standell66 edit[edit]

I am confused by the latest edit by Standell66 adding in final para Although the Standells™ have gone through various incarnations over the years (with Tony Valentino being the only member to never have left the band), but, since he is not in the current lineup, did the band thus leave him? Then there's the WP:PEA-worthy Their impact on the musical space-time continuum is immense, and the assertion of popular opinion - clearly, the band's core line-up recognized by the public (and has secondary meaning).

Also the addition of tm and registration symbols throughout is just a little over the top, and I am guessing not in keeping with WP:MOS.

So I am fixing those things, and have also done a general clean up. thus.

Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Much of the article is primary research, and thus subject to more scrutiny than usual as to secondary references. The good ones being, apart from the Burgess/Knowlin bio, the 2011 EPH and the 2004 LA Times, and also the (removed in the last edit) Garage Hangover. I've got a feeling this last one went because its version of the classic lineup omits Dick Dodd.

Larry Tamblyn did apply to trademark The Standells name in 2009, granted in 2010. Reading the patent application, apart from the Burgess/Knowlin bio, it only makes reference to the band's facebook and, indeed, this Wikipedia article - but no further independent sources including the "dba" filed in the State Of California in 1964 mentioned in the article.

What would be great is if someone who has the book could go through and improve and thoroughly reference the article.

Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"The godfathers of punk rock"[edit]

I am extremely dubious about this assertion, and particularly it's inclusion in the lede. This appears to me to be a self-aggrandizing title put about by the band or its immediate supporters. Even the LA Times article used as a ref distances itself saying "thought by some to be the godfathers of punk rock", while noting in its own lede that the band were "one hit wonders". A google search on the phrase, apart from this Wikipedia article, doesn't reveal a single other hit in the first 50 apart from a YouTube submitted by a user called "Chizoom" and a blurb from the band's own agency. A search on the phrase +"The Standells" reveals that most of the mentions are based on the Wikipedia article or the band's own publicity or sites. I believe it should be removed. Or included in the style section, saying something along the lines of "In latter years the band attempted to take on the mantle of punk, styling themselves "the godfathers of punk rock"". Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not this?
The Standells are a garage rock band from Los Angeles, California, formed in the 1960s, best known for their 1966 hit "Dirty Water." The song was covered by many punk rock bands, not only for its primordial guitar riffs, but also for lyrics that pronounced "lovers, muggers, and thieves" to be "cool people". In recent years, "Dirty Water" has become an anthem for the Red Sox and several other Boston sports teams.

--Ortolan88 (talk)

That middle sentence doesn't cut it in several ways. 1) It's not about the subject of the article, 2) it makes unsourced assertions that are not contained in the article, and 3) it's embellished with irrelevant detail.
I submit that my earlier formulation is a brief and concise overview per WP:LEAD, without making any controversial assertions:
The Standells are a 1960s garage rock band from Los Angeles, California, known for their 1966 hit Dirty Water, now the anthem of several Boston sports teams.
I don't beleive anthem needs linking. What could well be added is: In the last decade the band have reformed and toured internationally. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
In the best interest of neutral (encycopedic) language, it may be best to re-word the phrase to something akin to "...who have sometimes had the term 'godfathers of punk' applied to them by their devotees..." In this way, the phrase would not sound self-promoting, but merely convey essential information about how they are viewed by their followers. However, changing it to " latter years the band attempted to take on the mantle of punk, styling themselves "the godfathers of punk rock..." is not fair or accurate. The Standells and thier followers have just as much right to make the claim of them being pioneers in genre as anyone else. If you doubt this, please watch the opening credits to "Riot on Sunset Strip," (in early 1967) where they play the the song of the same name, and you will perfectly understand why the claim has been made. If you study the history and etymology of how "punk" came to be, you will see that their claim is not entirely without merit. I have written extenively on this topic in other posts (you can reference them in the archives of the punk and garage talk pages for a detailed explanation). Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree entirely, but there are a 1001 60s dirty R&B bands that could also make the claim. I mean, did The Kinks, The Pretty Things, The Animals, Them, godfather The Standells? Were The Deviants / Pink Fairies the godfathers in the UK? Where does it stop? But, I am not averse to regarded by some as the "godfathers of punk", with a good secondary source. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The claim is currently sourced to a single newspaper article. We should not overemphasise this, and I'd prefer the claim to be left out completely. But, if a more authoritative independent source can be found, it could stay. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that over time someone keeps changing the heading to read various things such as "one hit wonders" or "the punk band of the 60's, when it once read "the godfathers of punk." Obviously the "one hit wonders" thing is editorializing in a negative way, so it is unacceptable, even if an LA Times article said that (it didn't mean it in a negative way--it was actually meant as a complement). The same article called them the "godfathers of punk."
  • The current tag, "the punk band of the sixties" does not work either, because there were so many bands of the time for which the same thing can be said. It seems that, since no one can agree on which "motto" to quote in the heading (is it really necessary to have a motto in a heading?), that it would be best to have no motto there at all, but maybe put the LA Times "godfathers" reference somewhere later in the article, as part of the narrative. Then we could establish closure on this issue and have a stable heading. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

1962 Patent claim[edit]

There's a little confusion over this. Chizoom removed the ref to the 2009 service mark application, inserting instead the generic search page to validate the 1962 date. That link, if searched, will lead back to the removed ref. The USPTO accepted the 1962 first use claim in Tamblyn's submission. This is essentially because nobody challenged it, I think. Other secondary sources should be found to corroborate the 1962 founding, if any. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, see below for a link to the story of a fake Standells in 1988. Perhaps this might go some way to explain the, otherwise inexplicable, emphasis by the WP:COI editors on mentioning the first use date. More likely it has something to do with the 2006 Anheuser Busch case, of which there is no evidence of settlement or judgement. There doesn't appear to be any evident dispute between members of the band over the use of the name. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, hopefully some of the participants will explain here what it is that they are trying to achieve, so that an accurate version of the article, that meets WP's policy and guidelines, can be put in place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Old photos[edit]

I wouldn't say that the 1964 photo shows the band to have particularly long hair, but I guess by American standards of the day it is. What's more interesting is this 1963 pic with the name spelled with a single 'l'. Is that a typo, or did the spelling change? Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

More refs[edit]

Here's a few more that I haven't parsed as yet. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • [1] Rough Guide to rock - some details of late 60's activity, plus Cavestomp line-up.
  • [2] The Munsters appearance
  • [3] Lowell George bio
  • [4] Spin story on the Texas fake Standells of 1988
  • [5] Barney Hoskyns talks about "manufactured punk"

Personnel Details[edit]

Ghmyrtle probably has more familiarity with style policy so I will be advised by his/her opinion but, to me, the article reads awkwardly with all the extra info, birth date + place, other band credits on every member. I think readers would be better served by a straight history. The further details of the band members should perhaps all be moved into a personnel section. I've started, but not finished, the job Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of style as to how it's done - I'm not aware of any specific guidance, though I could be wrong - but I certainly don't see any need to take out the mentions of their birth details. Biographical articles - and this is one - usually give those details, and in this case they are referenced. I have edited many similar articles and included those details in the main text. My personal preference would be to leave the references to the individual musicians as they were, in the main section - it seems very odd (and much more "awkward") to me to have them as an afterthought to the main text, when they can be incorporated in the general chronological flow of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I submit to your expertise. I just think if they could all be in the personnel section, it would allow the main body to flow better. Feel free to undo the changes I already made. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Reading between the lines I am guessing the reason that Standell66 is so concerned about the membership issue, in contrast perhaps to name ownership, is that there are certain monies, or potential monies, that are accruable collectively to the group, including income from future live appearances which trade on the long time reputation of the group. Thus asserting continuing membership status is important. This would be the 'legal' matter referred to. not surprising that there is not much sourceable info out there. It's not technically a disupute over the name, just over shareouts. There are precedents where there are touring members and non-touring members.Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The only explanation that Standell66 has given is here -

"Niether Dick Dodd nor Tony Valentino departed/quit the Standells. Nor did Tamblyn create the band name. This is all related to an ongoing legal matter re- an alleged unlawful and fraudulent application Tamblyn filed in trademarking the Standells; re- his alleged misappropriation of monies he has collected and not distributed to and which belong to other members; his intentional and malicious interference with other band members' rights to use the name and ability to do work, as well as re- other issues (eg- his wife is in alleged violation of California Labor Law in unlawfully acting as a talent agent without a license in booking shows and doing Standells business, and is an alleged conspirator in the aforementioned Larry Tamblyn acts). It is being alleged that Mr. Tamblyn and his wife are in violation of both state and federal law. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it have facts. The gords of edits that have been created by Tamblyn and his wife contradict themselves, have contradicted his own trademark application- as you can see for yourself- and are deceiving the public."

None of that is referenced, of course. We have sources saying that the Standells (or, "a version of the Standells") currently comprise Tamblyn, Fleck and two others, but no sources stating that it currently contains Dodd and Valentino, or even any reliable sources stating that it is a matter of legal dispute, only a quote from Tamblyn alluding to the general issue. So, we must, in my view, go with what the sources say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't seen that. Makes things a bit clearer. I think, along with the fake Texas band, it might have the makings of a section. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think there's enough there for a separate section, especially as Standell66's claims are totally unsourced (and POV). Tamblyn's perspective is included in the article - if other sources publicise a different view, they can go in as well. The 1988 story could go in as well, though I'm not personally convinced it's particularly noteworthy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


NAME: I'd like to see some discussion about the name of the group. At the time they were popular, there was a manufacturer of guitar amplifiers named "Standell"art, and I believe the band used these amplifiers, thus making them a product placement item. L. Tamblyn in recent articles related to Dick Dodd's death, claims he invented the name because ...they stood around a lot in agents' offices waiting for work.... Anybody know anything about this?Daniel Sparkman (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Standells have claimed that there was no connection with the Standel company, and that they never used their amps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Standells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)