Talk:Tony Bennett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tony Bennett has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 19, 2009 Good article nominee Listed

Article expansion[edit]

[expansion requested] Ridiculously short amount of information on very notable vocalist. A google search for Tony has Wikipedia as the fourth site. ErikNY 20:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on the requested expansion. Wasted Time R 16:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done with the first pass through. Still needs refinement. Discography has lots of holes, Songs section needs work if still necessary, books need full biblio but the bulk of the story is hopefully there. Have taken off the expansion and stub markers. Wasted Time R 01:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added images. I decided the Songs section was hopeless, and just added references to the two that weren't already mentioned, into the main section. I moved the (currently quite partial) discography to its own article, since if done right it will be very long. Wasted Time R 03:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First name[edit]

151.205.117.118 keeps changing Bennett's original first name to Antonio, but it is definitely Anthony. On page 98 of his autobiography The Good Life, he states that his name is "Anthony Dominick Benedetto". Moreover, on page 14 there's a picture of him and his two siblings as small children, and a parent scrawled "Mary John and Anthony" on it. Wasted Time R 23:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Image[edit]

It's a pity we can't get a better/bigger image. On checking the image details, it is described as a low-res scan from an album cover. I can't see any problem with fair use in this instance, and maybe we can go a bit bigger? After all, the article contains several scans of entire album covers. --Surgeonsmate 00:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

Best practice is to wikify dates into the format [[20 January]] [[2001]] or [[January 20]] [[2001]] because this displays dates to the reader in their preferred format. The examples above would both display as 20 January 2001 to a reader with British preferences set. And January 20, 2001 to a reader with U.S. preferences (the default). See how these look to you:

  • 20 January 2001 displays as 20 January 2001
  • [[20 January]], 2001 displays as 20 January, 2001
  • [[20 January]] 2001 displays as 20 January 2001
  • [[20 January]], [[2001]] displays as 20 January, 2001
  • [[20 January]] [[2001]] displays as 20 January 2001
  • January 20, 2001 displays as January 20, 2001
  • [[January 20]] 2001 displays as January 20 2001
  • [[January 20]], 2001 displays as January 20, 2001
  • [[January 20]], [[2001]] displays as January 20, 2001
  • [[January 20]] [[2001]] displays as January 20 2001

We don't need to wikilink subsequent appearences of the same year when they are just a year, or even a month and year. But full dates should be wikified, if for no other reason than to display that comma for U.S. readers. See WP:MOSDATE --Surgeonsmate 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just tested the dates preferences setting, and in "European" mode the next-to-last entry does get changed into 20 January 2001, which is what is wanted. So it looks to me that your formulation and mine both work in this respect, and I would claim that the version with the comma is slightly easier to read in pure edit form. Wasted Time R 03:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether it appears easier to read or not is a matter of what you are personally used to. Wikified dates work the same whether there is a comma or not. The comma is therefore superfluous. --Surgeonsmate 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Antonia Bennett[edit]

As someone deleted her page when consensus was 'keep', I am puttling the cached Google version of her page in case anyone wants to work some of the information in on her dad's page. Never heard of her before, so not worth my effort to start her page again... (NOTABILITY NOTE: she did win an award.) Icarus 23 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Antonia Bennett (born Antonia Benedetto, April, 1978) is an American popular music and jazz singer, daughter of legendary singer Tony Bennett.

[edit]
Background
According to her website, Bennett has been performing alongside her father since she was four. She graduated from the Berklee College of Music in Boston.

In a review of the show in The New York Times, Bennett's performance was described as, "conjures echoes of Billie Holiday and Ricki Lee Jones, with a hint of Betty Boop."[1]

In 2005, she was the recipient of the David Award for entertainment, presented by the Italo-American National Union to promising young Italian-Americans

[edit]
References
Official Antonia Bennett music website 
Official Tony Bennett music website 
^ CABARET REVIEW; A Rhythm-and-Blues Man Croons to the Cocktail Crowd" New York Times, February 8, 2002 
www.WhiteHouse.com Dec 4, 2005 - Washington DC - Antonia Bennett a guest at the White House with President Bush, Tony Bennett, Robert Redford, and Tina Turner. 
9/21/2003 Antonia Bennett sings on The Regis & Kelly Show - New York City 
7/24/2000 The Today Show - New York City 

This article about an American singer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. 

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonia_Bennett"

Categories: Articles for deletion | United States singer stubs | Living people | 1978 births | American singers

Controversy?[edit]

Should this article mention Bennett's recent comments that America has given nothing to the world except jazz and Alcoholics Anonymous?Politician818 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cite? Wasted Time R 12:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra HS reference missing[edit]

I noticed there is no reference to Tony Bennett establishing the Frank Sinatra School of the Arts a performing arts school in New York City. Could someone please add one? Thanks.Justin Tokke 03:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's there, near the end. You just missed it. Wasted Time R 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Colbert[edit]

I know protecting is not used preventively but given Colbert's character outrage last year with Barry Manilow's Emmy win, there should be extra watchlisting of this article and protecting if necessary. 128.227.27.64 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed source[edit]

I removed a citation about Bennett's military experiences because the source was a brief profile at a military portal not meeting WP:RS for the information it was supporting. The info in the article needs to be removed or better sourced, which I will try to do. Does anyone have any immediate better sources for this info? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the cite with a 2006 Tavis Smiley interview, and reworded the text to better match what Bennett says. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're quick! And what 100x better source and resource for this already great article.Flowanda | Talk 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the place for biography[edit]

This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. The article isn't neutral enough and delivers too much praise. Also, avoid using headers like "A growing success" and "Looking ahead to the future" or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.122.32 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Not the place for biography" means. This is a biography of a living person, per WP:BLP. It reflects the balance of praise and criticism that other WP:RSes show towards Bennett; like it or not, most published accounts of his life and his music are favorable towards him. Are there any specific biographical or musical points that you feel has been omitted, that you think would make the article more neutral? Please say what they are, as it's hard to discuss neutrality complaints without having specific details. As for the headers, they are there because they give the reader an immediate sense of the narrative arc of Bennett's career. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed- In the sentence describing that TB developed a drug addiction, I took out the parenthetical that many musicians developed drug habits. It was unnecessary editorial context that turned a fact into an excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.15.223 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What´s the point of this picture?[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/TonyBenettKimmelCenter2.JPG
More than 3/4 is just a black nothing, it´s completely out of focus and where supposed to be a face of Bennett, is just a big white blur. Sorry, but this picture is of no use for the article and is wasting traffic on the wikipedia-servers every time someone loads this article. --93.133.206.65 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When viewed as part of the article (i.e. not clicked on), it isn't blurred, and it conveys the nature of a Tony Bennett concert: small combo, spartan stage, no hoopla, focus on Bennett. As such it has value. If something else can come up with a better photo that shows the same thing, great, but until then this is better than nothing. Given how hard it is to get photos into WP, "better than nothing" is a common conclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

this is not 'a good article',[edit]

it's a fan's effusion. "...tony had come all the way back", etc - you're got to be kidding. [20:06, February 18, 2011 209.34.145.82]

Regardless of whether you like him or his music or not, it's an objective fact that he staged a remarkable comeback very late in life. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy[edit]

I didn't want to edit the main article as it also concerns a separate reference so I thought it deserves some discussion. The section "First successes" states "Warned by Miller not to imitate Frank Sinatra[4] (who was just then leaving Columbia), Bennett began his career as a crooner singing commercial pop tunes."

Tony Bennett has just said himself on the UK TV Show "The One Show" That this is incorrect. It was actually one of his teachers at The American Theatre Wing who told him (I Quote) "Don't imitate other singers because you will be one of the chorus, be yourself. Imitate musicians rather than singers"

philetaylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philetaylor (talkcontribs) 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Two different incidents are involved here. As the article already says, in the late 1940s, Bennett "developed an unusual approach that involved imitating, as he sang, the style and phrasing of other musicians—such as that of Stan Getz's saxophone and Art Tatum's piano—helping him to improvise as he interpreted a song." That agrees with what was said on The One Show, and I've added to this text that the suggestion for this came from a teacher at American Theatre Wing (cited to your source, which is also in accordance with the existing source). Then in 1950, after he had signed a record deal, Bennett was warned by Mitch Miller to not imitate Sinatra. Separate thing. Thanks for bringing this up ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NEVER WROTE A SONG IN HIS LIFE[edit]

With alll due respect Tony Benent has a sweet voice but has never in is life like Sinatra and Elvis has wrote a song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.13.253 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When did Elvis write a song? (92.7.14.217 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

The song "All For You" on The Art Of Romance"is credited to Django Reinhardt & Tony Bennett - source liner notes ! Chrisphase (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The point that younger readers miss is that in a previous era, there were songwriters and there were singers and there was rarely any overlap. The singer was judged on his or her ability to peform and interpret a song, and it's from that perspective that Sinatra, Bennett, Ella Fitzgerald et al are written about. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Alterations rejected[edit]

I have recently made some alterations to the TB entry which have been rejected as unverifiable or expression of my opinion and I find it confusing that I was attempting to correct enteries that I felt had only been exprssions of opinion in any case. The first was in regard to his troubled times, I felt the sentance "he had hit rock bottom" to be unfair as having read his biography (and seen videos of concerts from around that period) whilst he was not present in the record charts he could still fill theatres with admiring audiences. The vague allusion to ill-considered Beatles songs seem to me to also unfair given the success he had with the George Harrison song "Something" which appeared on 2 albums and greatest hits collections as well as in concert. The album mentioned as being ill-concieved has much that is agreeable content and should not be judged solely (in someone's opinion) on Eleanor Rigby and I wanted to reflect that point. The implication the he had left Columbia to avoid Beatles songs makes it strange that he should record them on arrival with MGM/Verve - a fact not an opinion.

Finally I wanted to record the fact that in November a 73 CD set of almost all his recordings was issued regardless of recording company - and that is a fact too!

I must add that I find the wikipedia "protocol language" used confusing for someone who does not want to make a career of editing and agruing their points but wants to correct or add something in the same spirit of an existing article when it becomes known to them - I tried to use "Feedback about editing" without success - if I am raising this in the wrong way it is the best I can manage at present.

Chrisphase (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, that is the correct way to proceed. You are right that Wikipedia's rules can seem mystifying to a newcomer. The single most important one is also counterintuitive: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This causes a lot of trouble on the popular culture articles in particular. In any case, to particulars:

  • You are right that the Evanier bio doesn't really support the "He had hit bottom." line, although some news accounts pretty much gave this spin to it. On balance, I've decided to remove it.
  • The ill-considered Beatles songs is specifically a reference to the Tony Sings the Great Hits of Today! album, which multiple sources describe as dreadful. All Music Guide says "Disaster strikes". Time magazine says "disastrous" and "Shatneresque". Clive Davis in his memoir says Bennett threw up before going into the recording studio. Bennett in the Tony Bennett in the Studio book said "I left Columbia Records for one reason: They were forcing me to sing contemporary songs and I just couldn't stand it. I actually regurgitated when I made that awful album—I got physically sick. ... If I really adore a song, I just get into the creative zone and try to get the definitive version of the song that would make the composer feel magnificent. Where he would say, 'That's what I was trying to convey.' And Columbia wouldn't let me do that anymore." Now your edit said that this album was "under-rated". Can you point me to some mainstream, published body of opinion that thinks it's underrated?
  • I agree "Something" may be a special case, since he released it again (same recording or different, I'm not sure) on the Tony Bennett's Something album. It also a little more of a 'standards' reputation since Sinatra famously liked it and recorded it. But what notable compilations has it been on? It's not in the 40-song The Essential Tony Bennett, which is sort of the 'core' Bennett repertoire. How often has it appeared in concert? Is there a source that says it's a 'major' Bennett song?
  • See Bennett's quote above about why he left Columbia. Not just Beatles songs, but other contemporary material. And what Beatles songs did he sing with MGM/Verve? There aren't any on The Good Things in Life or Listen Easy that I can see, but maybe I'm missing something. Your edit added that he had a TV show in England, which seems worth mentioning, is there a source for that?
  • Regarding the 73 CD set, you wrote "Late in 2011 Columbia Records issued a 73 CD plus 3 DVD set to celebrate his 85th birthday - The Complete Tony Bennett Collection - finally filled in the gaps by including many albums that had not had a previous CD release, although not actually complete and duplicating recent issues it has been welcomed by his many fans." This may be worthy of inclusion, but it needs some sources indicating that it wasn't complete and it needs some kind of metric about how "welcomed" it was – at $600 or $800 or whatever the price, did anyone besides collectors buy it?

Anyway, if you see the 90 different footnotes in this article, that's the kind of support that material needs to get in. So please proceed with discussions here, but with some sources attached. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying - I shall digest and respond in due course - meanwhile on MGM/Verve he recorded Paul McCartney's My Love & George Harrison's Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth) which appear on Tony Bennett's Greatest Hits Vol7 released on Verve Lp and Curb CD 1991, "Something" is Track 1 on Tony Bennett's All-Time Greatest Hits Columbia 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisphase (talkcontribs) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "My Love" and "Give Me Love", Spotlight On Tony Bennett was a UK-only release I think and Tony Bennett's Greatest Hits Vol 7 is one of those endless repackagings of mishmash contents that record companies do. I don't think it makes those recordings notable in any way. You've got a better case with "Something", since the original 1972 Tony Bennett's All-Time Greatest Hits is a legitimate collection of his best-known songs and "Something" is on it (track 18, as it's in chrono order). So the bottom line is that yes, he didn't escape recording contemporary songs at MGM/Verve ... but the overall point remains that he was trying to. If you look at 1986 The Art of Excellence on forward, when he regained control over his career, I only spotted three contemporary pop songs in all those albums (one James Taylor, one Billy Joel, one Kermit the Frog). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrisphase (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reluctant as I am to devote too much of my life to this I find myself unable to resist an immediate reposte - "Something" is Track 1 on my copy of the All-Time CD and not track 18 and it is also listed as track 1 in my Music Master record Catalogue edition 18 (1991) on the vinyl too - for two enteries, "My Love" had a UK Philips and US Verve single release and impressed someone enough to be put into a greatest hits package which in your opinion are a mismash - it would appear their opinion - like mine - count for little. I had mentioned them to counter your statement that he had no Beatles songs on his two Verve albums. I find it hard to believe he left Columbia to avoid Beatles songs only to record some with his next recording company. When I have time I will list for you occasions of "Something" sung in concert (including the outtake from the Get Happy live Album) I have in my collection and details of the TV shows I have.

With regard to the Complete set there is an article by Will Friedland attached to the Barnes & Noble entry where it sells for $399.99 which touches on the completness of the set.Chrisphase (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the BN/Friedwald pointer, I've used it and a JazzTimes piece as sources to restore your mention of the collection to the article (wording changed to be less effusive). More detail than this could go into a Tony Bennett – The Complete Collection article (not yet created). I've also used the Evanier bio to restore/expand a bit/clarify the MGM/Verve/Philips England period, including the TV show that you mentioned (which sounds very intersting the more I read about it, and probably worthy of its own article too). And I've added that he was still doing Beatles material during this time. If your overall point is that this article takes Bennett's later claims of revulsion at doing contemporary material too much at face value, you may be right; consider this interview from c. 1972 for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrisphase (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)I am much happier with the alterations you have now made but do still object to the description of the album in question as ill-conceieved as this is only an opinion that directs any reader away from the album without balancing the opinion with the opposing view, even if Tony Bennett now disowns it. I have unearthed an article on an interview he gave Paul Gambaccino for Rolling Stone 10/5/73 - it was published in the Appreciation Society newsletter in 2000 but I cannot retrieve the original from the Rolling Stone 1973 archive. In it TB claims "I really tricked them - I did them all my way, quality music, anyway" I don't know if the photocopy I have would scan in as an attachment. I would also point out that this album was recorded shortly before the next and material was held over for the album "Something" which TB remains proud of and allowed to be part of his Master Series of mid 90's CD releases - see his comments on the reverse about his "Hit Catalog". "Eleanor Rigby" apart there is little to choose between these 2 albums depending on personal preferences. Amongst others "Golden Slumbers" was also recorded but never released. Both albums were arranged by Peter Matz late 1969 to Summer 1970.

The article also confirms Mike Curb gave him control over the material he recorded at Verve. The "Great Songs" album has been included in the Complete box set and yet 2 Verve album tracks are withheld and one wonders if memory gets confused.

As mentioned I have many recordings of "Something" from TV shows and concerts up to 10 years after the recording I can list if you wish - the last was at Edmonton c1981 with Woody Herman which has been issued under many labels on dvd - and shows he was not limited to Las Vegas. TB although proud of his "Songbook" recordings also claims the delight he had in introducing new songs (covers) as he often reminds us in concert.

The complete set needs adding to the discography.

I shall now move on.Chrisphase (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

Don't want to step on anyone's toes, but, photos are my thing on the Wikipedias, and in Wikimedia Commons. I replaced the infobox photo for a clearer one of Bennett from the same time period, and removed a very dark photo further down in the text. Also to improve the balance of the look of the article, I moved both photos from his Honors at the White House and Kennedy Center from the left side of the page to the right. If there are objections, please leave me a note on my talk page.. I try to keep up with watchlists, but after all these years and after uploading over 1,500 pictures that are currently in use, it's hard to remain informed. Thanks so much! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree your choice for the top photo is better. But the old one deserves to be in later on, since it's the only full-length one of him in concert. I've restored the 'dark' one, because it's the only one that gives the audience 'long view' of what the Bennett concert experience is like (most people are not in the front rows!); the caption now gives this motivation. I removed one of the Library of Congress ones, which was duplicative of others now here. I added some others that covered topics and periods with no image coverage until now. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Tony Bennett arrives at the Gala Opening of the Broad Contemporary Art Museum at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art on February 9, 2008.

The top photo seems problematic. "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." It's a definite no-no to be looking away from the text, especially for a top image. Any problem with the one to the right? It's also five years more recent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

When you have multiple good photos, yes the facing away is to be avoided. But in the more usual WP situation of having no really good photos, it's any port in a storm. The one you propose is a blow-up and crop of one that's already in the article in the "Works" section. It's okay there, but I don't think the resolution's good enough in the blow-up for the top spot. The other recent contender is File:Tony Bennett by Peter Chiapperino.jpg by User:Peterchiapperino, just reverted out by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It has Bennett's body square on but his face still looking away. It deserves to be in the article somewhere, if not in the top spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Suit yourself. The resolution may not be great, but it shows both sides of his face instead of just one. Plus five years more recent. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with AYW- the 2008 one is more suitable since it shows his face more fully. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Plus, being a Democrat, Bennett doubtless would not want a top pic that looks so much like William F. Buckley. Remember, subject preference matters!  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It sure does. Someone should write to his people and ask for permission to use a professional-quality, posed in the right direction portrait for the top photo. For that matter, you'd really think all these artists and celebs would be writing us begging for us to use their photos. For years, some of the most famous and best looking people in the world have been presented here as out-of-focus shadow-embedded ghouls. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
WTR, suppose I place an advert in Variety (magazine) offering to upload pics for $100 each. Would I be violating any Wikimedia policy? It might get boring after awhile though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I think we always need to remember that the primary function of an infobox photo is to be an identifying image, and in most cases the equivalent of a head shot is what we aim for. (There are a few people may be more recognizable in profile; insert the obligatory Kim Kardashian joke.) Which way the eyes point is, in this context, a minor and subordinate issue. Might I suggest that somebody with the appropriate skills "cap" and crop a suitable frame from this rather clear video from whitehouse.gov [1]; I believe the video itself would be free, even if there might be issues over the audio. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of people requesting photos, I seem to remember Tara Strong and Grey DeLisle doing so..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I tried screen shots of the video, but the resolution comes out no better than the pic to the right. Maybe others can do better. I continue to think the pic to the right would be a better top image than the present one, despite the low resolution, because it's five years more recent, it looks more like a portrait, and it shows both sides of his face. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Anythingyouwant, Leahtwosaints, and Wasted Time R, I would be happy to crop and flip (so its facing the right way) my photo of File:Tony Bennett by Peter Chiapperino.jpg and reupload in a higher resolution. For now, I placed it lower in the article in the more current part of his timeline. Forgive me if I did something wrong, I'm kinda new at this, I am an freelance concert photographer by trade not an editor. I have another question about uploading my photography to pages, but I am not sure if its appropriate for the this thread. Aloha Petechiapperino (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2014 (HST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterchiapperino (talkcontribs)
Per guidelines, "images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The sections of the article don't seem right[edit]

It appears to me that much of the introduction belongs in the early years of Bennett's life. The biography as a whole appears to mention his first years in the lead section, instead of chronologically in the first section. Otherwise, most of his article focuses on either his later career or discography and awards. More focus on balance for his life acheivements? Remember too, the images should clearly reflect the text. Don't just cram them in there because you have one you really like, and jam in anyplace there's space- that doesn't follow WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leah, I'm the one responsible for this article. The introduction (lead section) summarizes the whole article, from birth through current status, in chronological order. No facts are introduced in the lead section that aren't repeated and sourced later in the article body. As for the article body, as I count the material that's organized chronologically, here is the coverage:
  • 1920s-30s - 3 paragraphs
  • 1940s - 5 paragraphs
  • 1950s - 6 paragraphs
  • 1960s - 5 paragraphs
  • 1970s - 5 paragraphs
  • 1980s - 2 paragraphs
  • 1990s - 5 paragraphs
  • 2000s - 5 paragraphs
  • 2010s - 3 paragraphs
That seems pretty balanced to me. As for images, which ones do you propose to delete? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why the controversy section still needs to remain[edit]

What Tony Bennett said isn't just like any other political comment. It's nothing like the normal political differences that you find in people like John Mcain, Obama, etc. He comment was wildly controversial and needs to be mentioned as such.

It's been mentioned in various new reports and even to the point where he had to apologize: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tony-bennett-on-911-attacks-they-flew-the-plane-in-but-we-caused-it/ http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44602197/ns/today-entertainment/t/tony-bennett-blames-americans-attacks/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/09/20/tony-bennett-tells-howard-stern-us-caused-11-attacks/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/tony-bennett-911_n_971972.html

Alot of wikipedia celelbraty articles have contraversy sections like that. George Clooney and his comment on Charlton Heston for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clooney#Controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 19:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The remark and apology are not being ignored by this article - there is a whole paragraph about this in the article now. The only question is whether there should be a separate top-level "Controversy" section around it. There should not. As I pointed out on your talk page, "Controversy" sections are a bad idea, wherever they occur. Yes, I know you see them in some WP articles, such as the Clooney one, but not in the good ones. This article has passed the "Good Article" process - see the Symbol support vote.svg symbol at the upper right - which means it holds to a higher standard of quality. "Controversy" sections are a poor practice that are considered a violation of WP:NPOV and multiple other guidelines. For example, for American politicians, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment—see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort. The same thing was done for all the 2012 contenders as well. So if Barack Obama and John McCain and Mitt Romney don't have "Controversy" sections, neither should a musician or actor or anybody else. Controversial matters should be discussed in chronology with everything else, where the proper context and weighting and balance and understanding can be maintained. In a few cases, such as with the Dixie Chicks, a controversy is so major that it alters the entire career of the artist involved, and in that case a separate section is warranted. But that is not the case with Bennett; his career has gone on just as it would have if he hadn't made the remark. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been awhile, but I still have to stress that a controversy section is needed. You do strike a valid arguement and i'd like to discuss this further if you'd like, but I stand by my opinion. He does apologize, but it still gathered a storm of backlashing with is the whole basis of controversy in general. Compairing him to the 2012 presidental canidates is alot akward since that's a completely different story. Presidental canidates have massive, massive profiles and what they do that is controversal is little more than sides of the political spectrum. Left or right. Tony Benett on the other hand basically called America the real terrorists in wake of the 9/11 bombings. Granted, it may not have altered his entire career, but it still leaves a large mark on his moral character since his statement was neither left or right in terms of politics and/or morality. The statement itself to those that heard it was undesirible. That being said I believe that it's only fair to referce it as controversal, since that's what I was in the end(along with the fact that it was neither left or right). Still, i'm willing to discuss this if I must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 02:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As this article states in the "1944–1950: World War II and after" section, Bennett's experience as a soldier in the front lines of World War II made him a pacifist. He believes that war and military actions and violence just brings about more war, more military actions, more violence. Pacifism does not fit neatly into the left-right political spectrum but it is a recognized philosophical outlook and while you may consider it a mark on his moral character, others consider it a sign of high moral character. There are no mainstream news sources that say that Bennett's remarks led to the public viewing his moral character as damaged, no news sources that say he suffered a drop in record sales or concert attendance or industry prestige, indeed there are no news sources that I can see from 2012 or 2013 that discuss these remarks at all. There was a flurry of attention in 2011 and then everyone moved on. The existing treatment of it in this article is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just thanks[edit]

Thank you to all the editors who have contributed so much time and energy to this article. It was such a pleasure to read! I wish all our articles were half as good. Keep up your wonderful work. - Gorthian (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As the primary contributor here, I thank you. Praise is rare in this business! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Cool[edit]

Who gave him this nickname? --Melly42 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Illogical Redirect[edit]

The name "Antonia Bennett" redirects to Tony Bennett. This is a mistake. Antonia Bennett is actually Tony Bennett's daughter, not Tony's real first name, which is actually Anthony. In the Wikipedia page for Tony's ex-wife, Sandra Grant, it refers to Tony Bennett's daughter, Antonia, but the hyperlink redirects to Tony's page, because of this mistake. Could someone please fix this (I don't know how and don't feel like learning right now). Once fixed, go ahead and delete this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.121.25.61 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is common for famous people's children to redirect to parents' articles when the children don't meet WP:BIO, though are still plausible search terms. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. A couple that spring to mind are Euan Blair and Florence Cameron, but I notice the infobox gives her name as Antonia Benedetto. Where are you suggesting the redirect should lead? This is Paul (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the whole "famous people's kids sometimes redirect to their parent(s)" thing, and I do believe now that the redirect was probably intentional and not a mistake. However, I still do not agree with it. The article on Tony Bennett makes no real mention of his daughter Antonia. I think it should just go to a "No page exists with this name". Someone could, in the future, make an article, or at least a stub, about her. After all, she is a somewhat notable singer and if you google her you will see a lot of things come up. Someone could, at the very least, put a blurb in the Tony Bennett article about her so that the redirect isn't completely pointless, barring an actual article/stub on her.

I suppose something about her could be added to the article. This is Paul (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I Just noticed: Someone already made note of all this up above in the section titled "Antonia Bennett". Apparently she had her own page and the general consensus was to keep it, but it was removed. This person copied and pasted the article as it was if anyone feels like reposting it, or at the very least, incorporating into Tony Bennett's article. She is somewhat notable; more-so than some of the other people on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouarelovedSOmuch (talkcontribs) 00:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that she has an album out on a real label, there is enough for there to be an article on here, so I have revived and updated the old one. So the redirect issue is now moot. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tony Bennett. 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 12:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tony Bennett. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)