Talk:Phil Keaggy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Question: "Who is the best guitarist in the world?"[edit]

This is not a place to add commentary. The first, longstanding, paragraph is encyclopedic in tone and content. The second, new, paragraph is not encyclopedic in tone and content. It is POV commentary, with some content not even germaine to the article itself (e.g., "Musical styles as well as individual playing styles vary greatly. Then there are the electric guitar players as well as the acoustic guitar players.") Some of the "facts" are undocumented (e.g., "Three of the primary reasons this rumor has persisted is due...") and the grammar is shocking (e.g., again, "Three of the primary reasons this rumor has persisted is due..."). The point of the section is not to answer the question. It is to explain the phenomenon of the question itself.

However, to avoid reversion wars, I have put this in the talk page to be resolved quickly. While I do not wish to be uncharitable, I think this addition has seriously downgraded the quality of the article, when we have a hard enough time getting quality NPOV articles on CCM artists and music that meet Wikipedia standards. --Holford 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why make a fuss over Jimi's alleged comment, and then declare it untrue later in the article. All the endless name-dropping about meeting people and doing covers just looks like a weak plea for validation. 2602:304:AF5A:F09:7DAB:715F:759D:B26 (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a prominent urban legend and that in itself is encyclopedic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Songs[edit]

I just heard of him today and he is something! Salvation Army Band -Yancyfry

Fair use rationale for Image:WhatADay.jpg[edit]

Image:WhatADay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A long ad for Keaggy[edit]

The whole page reads like a long advertisement for the subject as a whole, and Christianity in part. This is why I added the NPOV tag. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give an example paragraph. I don't really see the POV issue. All of the material is factual and not particularly ad-like. I may have to re-read the article though as it's changed a lot in the last year. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I find them, I am eliminating them. See any of my recent edits with "npov" in the edit comment. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed. Thanks for doing that and making this a better article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a lot of the article looks like liner notes. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read them all so I can't pick out which parts are and which aren't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that they are liner notes, simply that they look like (maybe I should have said "read like") liner notes. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thinking of the editors who are writing here, I can imagine why they read like that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't notice any remaining POV. Why is the tag still on this page? Parableman (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I looked further and noticed a few things here and there. Those do need to be taken care of first. Parableman (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"is described as being a wonderful blend of ambient jazz and funk, as well as being accredited with creating some of the tastiest jazz-funk licks to come out of Music City in a long, long time." No wonder this article is so long. Barring objections, I'm going to work on it some over the next couple of days. Dgndenver (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loops[edit]

The paragraph that talks about Roundabout currently reads "The songs were comprised of looped pieces." User_talk:JHunterJ keeps trying to correct this. First edit changed it to "The songs were composed of looped pieces". Since the album is entirely improvisational it's wrong to suggest that it was composed. Second edit was "The songs comprised looped pieces". I this second better except that the songs themselves use multiple loops and therefore stating that the songs were comprised of loops is more correct than the other two. The songs are loops created with Phil's JamMan and possibly other looping devices. He layers multiple loops over each other. On some tracks he uses a decay feature where the sound fades out over time and new ones are added. On other tracks, he uses the device to create traditional loops: a bed over which he can improvise lead lines. An other others he stacks multiple sounds without decay again allowing for improvisation once the base loop has been defined. This is why the songs themselves are comprised of loops.

Please note that I didn't undo your change earlier in the article made along with the first correction of comprised to composed. So I do understand the correct usage. There isn't a need in this case to correct the grammar until the subject is fully understood. I hope I'm helping you to understand the subject more fully. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The songs were comprised of loops." is not correct -- no usage of "comprised of" is correct in formal usage. Possible alternatives:
  • The songs comprised loops.
  • The songs consisted of loops.
  • The songs were made up of loops.
  • The songs were composed of loops. (note that this is "compose" in the "made up of" sense, not the musical composition sense)
  • The songs included loops.
There is no change in subject meaning between "The songs are comprised of loops" and "The songs comprise loops" except for the informal/formal usage distinction. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you take this sentence: "The songs are comprised entirely of loops with live performance" and remove entirely and tell me how were comprised of is incorrect, then go back to school and leave the phrase alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing further, while I understand the propensity to avoid comprised of by some grammatical schools (see [5] for example), it is not entirely incorrect to use the phrase when used correctly (see [6] for example). The usage as I have described is correct and despite it grating your ears is not incorrect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered by some style authorities to be incorrect, and is never necessary, so Wikipedia should use other constructs. "X were comprised of Y" should be rewritten as either "X comprised Y" or "X were composed of Y"; the usage you describe is no different than any other usage of it. And your "go back to school" comment is unwelcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it incorrect usage in this case?
  2. By changing the usage you change the meaning.
  3. English is not a static language. If it were, you would not be using prepositions at the end of sentences nor using split infinitives. We do regularly so forget the rules of grammar and instead follow the rules of commonly use in order to be understood.
Feel free to address any point individually, but the use is not only understood, it is correct. With that said, to change would not do damage to the article, provided that the meaning is left intact. As for the school comment, I'm sorry you find it unwelcome, you did not, however, address the underlying issue: you don't understand the correct use of comprised of and as such, that wold be the fourth point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "comprised of" is incorrect in this case, by the traditional definitions of "comprise". No, by changing "were comprised of" to either "comprised" or "were composed of", the meaning did not change (although one must understand that the "compose" there is not a musical term). Yes, English is not static. However, some current style guidelines recognize the distinction between "comprise" and "compose", and there is no reason for Wikipedia articles not to follow them, since the stricter usage of "comprise" is valid under any style guidelines. You don't seem to understand the incorrect usage of "comprised of". -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The individual songs are comprised entirely of loops with live...". Since that is not incorrect use, neither is it incorrect to drop the adjective to complete the sentence. Also, as I explained above, it's not incorrect in this case, by any definition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect usage. "Comprised" means "was composed of", so your sentence parses to "The individual songs are was composed of entirely of loops with live..." "are comprised entirely of" should be replace with "consist entirely of", "are composed entirely of", "are made up entirely of", "include only", etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your wrong on both counts. I gave you links to definitions above. Feel free to argue with the dictionaries. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this line in the wiktionary link, then: "There is no need to use comprise in place of compose. With regard to journalistic writing, the Associated Press Stylebook maintains this distinction." Or this from Merriam-Webster: "you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up." Or this from Longman: "If you want to mention all the parts that something has in it, use consist of, comprise, be composed of, or be made up of" Or this from The Free Dictionary: " The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, ..." Wikipedia should reflect this careful writing. You're arguing with your dictionaries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I caught that line. You missed me saying the language is changing, and that there are times when it is acceptable. This is the case here. You also missed my other point: go ahead and change the wording without changing the meaning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that there are some times when it is acceptable. At all times there are some style interpretations under which it is gaining acceptability. At all times there are also some under which it is still incorrect. There is no reason not to use one of the phrasings that is correct under every style interpretations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is that there is an exception to this grammatical rule. This is the exception. That you don't accept 1) that there are exceptions to the rule, and 2) don't recognize that this is one is disturbing. This is correct use. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's this exception you're claiming? What's the disturbance? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote about it above. You're not reading it. Every resource you've pointed to states that there are exceptions by using words or phrases such as usually or in most cases. That implies that there are exceptions. It's disturbing that you are editing based on a rule to which you don't know the exceptions, knowing that there are exceptions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misreading them. I didn't see any exceptions for additional words and phrases in the links. Please quote? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Never mind. I think the article itself has reached a good point, where the wording both means what you think it should and avoids the phrasing that I think it should. There's no need to beat this through here. If desired, we can continue on your Talk or mine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, what genres should we put down for him. I know for sure he does pop music. But I think that we should put genres in the genre boxes if we only have a source for that particular genre. We should find sources listing what genres he does; instead of just putting down what we think he plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Personal Life[edit]

Should there be any mention that his son, Ian, who has already been established as a musician in other sections of this article, is the bassist for the band Hot Chella Rae? Their song "Tonight Tonight" peaked at #7 on the Billboard Hot 100. There are plenty of other musicians, actors, and athletes who have successful children mentioned in "personal life" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He should be mentioned, but it should be brief. WP:BLP used to indicate that spouses, children, etc., should only be mentioned if they are themselves notable. That policy seems to have been removed, or more the point, I can't find it any longer. The important thing to remember is that this is an article about Phil not Ian Keaggy. Oh, and per WP:NUMERO, it peaked at No. 7, not #7. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm talking about literally one sentence: "His son Ian Keaggy is the bassist and a backing vocalist for the pop rock band Hot Chella Rae." If no one objects in a week or so, I'll add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

WP:MOSLQ indicates that "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas outside the quotation marks all the time, but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material." So albums and songs that don't have punctuation as part of their names need to have the punctuation moved outside of the quotes and formatting. I made a few changes but don't have time to check the whole article. Could someone spend some time to improve? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

73-76: Painful Times[edit]

I read the part of the article about the "brief hiatus" in Keaggy's recording career and the Ted Nugent quote about "Whatever happened to that Phil Keaggy guy...." and I took quick notice that a painful and difficult time in Keaggy's life had been clipped out of the story. Keaggy had become a member of the Bob Mumford "Shepherding" cult, a.k.a. "The Ft. Lauderdale Movement," via the Love Inn community in Freeville, NY, where he and his wife resided. He was not exactly being held prisoner, but as is most often the case with cults, he was probably under some form of heavy psychological pressures and inducements to be highly conforming and obedient to the leadership's directives and plans for his life. (I was in the same cult, but in Massachusetts, and I got out of it earlier than he did.) It was my understanding that during this time, he was mostly assigned to make dupe tapes for distribution of the syndicated Scott Ross Show. (We can probably tell Ted Nugent that that is what happened to that Phil Keaggy guy--he went from being a genius to being a Borg drone.) I was also told by a Christian concert producer that Phil Keaggy was never seen on the road except in the presence of other Love Inn people traveling with him, most notably Teddy Sandquist who was allegedly his shepherd. They appeared to have Keaggy on a somewhat short leash.

The item that makes it seem like the '73-'76 episode is severely edited is that the article doesn't even mention where he lived during this time period. The fact that he picked up everything and moved into a Christian community in rural New York is a fairly significant life event. It should at least be mentioned.

It might be that he has never spoken of these things and there is nothing in print that could be used as documentation. In this case, it can't go in a wiki article. But, he did go through a strange and difficult time that lasted several years, and he came out on top. It seems this part of his life should be documented. It was definitely more than a brief hiatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without references, there's nothing we can say about this in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Phil Keaggy. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Keaggy. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1970s[edit]

Is there any ref or documentation for the claim: "The effect requires picking the string, raising and then lowering the guitar volume knob for each note in a melody"? I have always assumed Keaggy was just switching in a gating effect. I've seen him play live, and have never seen anything like this, nor have I seen any concert footage of him manipulating the volume knob "for each note in a melody". I think someone just put this sentence in here without knowing how he really got the effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.168.23 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen him do it multiple times. He doesn't play electric much any longer, but this is some old footage of him doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kUrT6fdYqY an this is an instruction video of how it's actually done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzYMtXX9jSU Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Keaggy. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "Rumors" section?[edit]

The inclusion of the "Rumored comments" section doesn't make sense to me. Rumors aren't facts, they're just hearsay. In this case, they're actually known to be false--it's even stated in the article that they're false--so then why are they included at all? I don't agree with the guy above who says it's an "urban legend" and therefore merits inclusion. Maybe if the rumors weren't known to be bogus, this reasoning might make sense; but since they are known to be B.S., I just don't understand why they're in the article at all. I feel this entire section should be stricken, but if anyone can point me to a Wikipedia rule that says it should remain, I will listen.Chillowack (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's because they are so pervasive that the section exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you're the person who wrote this section? Would you kindly point me to a Wikipedia guideline that states "if rumors are pervasive, they should be included"? In other words: on what basis do you believe "pervasiveness" of rumors is grounds for Wikipedia inclusion? In this case, the rumors have not only been proven false already, but are stated *in this very article* as being false. It seems hard to justify inclusion of bogus rumors (even if they are "pervasive"), but if you can cite a Wikipedia guideline, I would be genuinely interested to learn. Chillowack (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write the section. If you're interested, you can see how it evolved by looking at the history of the article. I may have edited the section after it was established though.
What we have is WP:RS. Since the topic has been discussed by reliable sources, it's reasonable to include, as long as it's not WP:UNDUE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for citing your basis. From WP:RS I quote: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
So the question seems to be: are these rumors still noteworthy even after they've been proven false? I welcome input from other editors who may wish to weigh in on this. Chillowack (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article treats it as a discussion about the rumour itself, so, yes, it has value. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_Keaggy&oldid=1207935418"