Talk:Mellotron/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

thanks

Knowing that all Wikipedians do appreciate some feedback now and then — It is nice that this article was there when I needed it. Femto 12:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought i started this article earlier this year but maybe i only added to it? anyway my name isn't there and i can't remember now, i didn't know Vangelis used it in AC? that makes me want one even more now :) Nick Boulevard 22:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that I think this is a prime example of a great Wikipedia article, and if it has not already been, should be, a Featured Article. As a side note, this has been mentioned on the Nine Inch Nails article already, but Trent Reznor owns John Lennon's Mellotron, and has used it in many recordings he produced. Keep up the great work. --Insomniak 04:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Tape springs

There should be a mention the tape springs (and here) that were a crucial part of the operation of the key mechanisms. The wikipedia article leaves the reader wondering how the hell the tapes got rewound after a key was played. os 13:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mellotron.gif

Image:Mellotron.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

non-neutral?

The Mellotron in popular music section seems to take a non-neutral and defensive or accusatory point of view following the parts where bands are listed. I am no expert on the matter but it does not seem to be an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Agonotheta (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. This entire section is non-neutral, admits to being editorial and controversial, and fails to provide any information to the reader beyond "somebody thinks that mellotron sampling is the worst thing ever". As the preceding paragraph provides a neutral, concise overview of this very issue, I have deleted this entire section. Take it to the talk page if necessarily, but diatribes have no place in articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.199.188 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That whole section was a fan-cruft car-crash. I did some pruning. More is still required. Entries in that section of the article should be NOTABLE as per WP:NOT and should not violate WP:OR --feline1 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lennon/Reznor connection

I though it should be noted that Trent Reznor now owns the Mellotron previously owned by John Lennon. He used it on his albums Broken, The Fragile, and Marilyn Manson's Antichrist Superstar.

Some could throw that in there if they want...


No, No, No, No, No, No, No, Not true and never has been true.


Reznor does not own it. He rented or borrowed it.


John Lennon's Mellotron "resides" with Jimmy Iovine Jr. in the executive offices of Interscope Records. It was sold by The Record Plant in New York. It is also likely an asset of the business and does not belong to Jimmy Iovine Jr.

And John Lennon did NOT use this Mellotron on any recordings with the Beatles other than to record effects for Tommorrow Never Knows. It was strictly his home machine used on his own private recordings. The Strawberry Fields etc. machine was a rental unit hired in (long gone now), and the White Album machine was a BBC effects unit. 


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.206 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is nothing worse than a purist. The mellotron was a sampler after all, so the samples of a sampler shouldn't anger people so much. :)


No - music historians / students, others come here looking for hard to find information on a historic musical instrument and this article should be strictly limited to that. Digital sample use of any instrument or sound belongs in a separate Wikipedia entry. A page of library reference quality information on the original Mellotron should not be used as a platform or space for discussion, endorsement or advertisement of digital samples of any instrument.


Who is the tw*t who keeps vandalising the article? --feline1 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (By the way, I was talking about the person who keeps adding their paragraph of tedious rant about real-mellotrons-vs-samples), not about fancruft entries attempting to list every album in the world featuring a mellotron...--feline1 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that person is vandalizing at all. He (or she) is talking about a type of fraud I think. I've just checked planet mellotron out. It talks about that just like the paragraph mentions. What's wrong with people knowing about that??

There's nothing wrong with using samples. But using samples and saying it's the real deal? Lying is just not cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.60 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. See WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:DICK amoungst others--feline1 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the guidelines out -- most of the entire article is questionable. But Planet Mellotron is an excellent source. I suggest you check it out. You'll learn something. Maybe you don't think the last part belongs, but others might. I think it should stay cause it's equal to all the claims about what bands used the Mellotron. If all the aspects aren't there, then the whole article should be pulled. And sorry but if the last link and choice of words is directed to me personally - just for sticking up for the persons'entry??.... well that suggests more about your character than the person you're trying to censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.53 (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Mentioning EVERY group that uses a mellotron?

Isn't this a little bit too overkill? It's trivial, cloggy and messy. Michaelterren (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it's fancruft hell.--feline1 (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles

I removed the comment about Mike Pinder where it said "He subsequently introduced the Mellotron to John Lennon and Paul McCartney of The Beatles, who used it to make tape loops for their song "Tomorrow Never Knows"."

The Beatles did not use a Tron to make the tapes, though some tron sounds were used on the tapes. From the Wikipedia page about the song itself:

"McCartney supplied a bag of ¼ inch audio tape loops he had made at home after listening to Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge. By disabling the erase head of a tape recorder and then spooling a continuous loop of tape through the machine while recording, the tape would constantly overdub itself... McCartney encouraged the other Beatles to use the same effects and create their own loops.

The numerous tapes McCartney supplied were played on five individual BTR3 tape machines, and controlled by EMI technicians in studio two at Abbey Road on 7 April. The four Beatles controlled the faders of each machine while Martin varied the stereo panning..."

"The tape loops contained: 

   * A "seagull" or "American Indian" whooping effect (which was McCartney shouting/laughing).
   * An orchestral chord of B flat major (from a Sibelius symphony) (0:19)
   * A Mellotron Mk.II, played with the "flute" tape set (0:22)
   * Another Mellotron played in 6/8 from B flat to C, using the "3 violins" tape set (0:38)

The flute sound was never used for tape loops in Tomorrow Never Knows. That is a book error repeated on the internet. The sounds used are strings and brass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.3.100.86 (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(rest left out) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumbent (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations regarding the Model Numbers of the MelloTrons

http://www.vemia.co.uk/mellotron/#Novatron_Mark_V

This website which is mentioned at http://www.mellotronics.co.uk/links.htm describes a full list of models. Could this be used at the quote on quote citation?

User99671 (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

I changed the bit about Led Zeppelin using Mellotron in the song "Kashmir." While it is true that John Paul Jones used it to recreate the lines in concert, the album version is accompanied by a real Moroccan orchestra. --PAJ

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the album version of Kashmir features both real orchestral instruments *and* a mellotron. 74.65.6.62 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't want to touch this entry, But I'm wodering where Did The art of noise of the melotron? I don't remember any instant of them using it. (anon)

Not sure but I think the Art of Noise's 1998 album The Seduction of Claude DeBussy featured a Mellotron (194.63.116.72 13:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC))


I added some Mellotron users; this might spin out of hand and become a second List of Moog users. On the other hand, Jarre testifies that some of his music would have sounded different if some keys on his Mellotron had not been broken... Vangelis used it a lot in the early 1970s (with Aphrodite's Child, his albums Earth and Apocalypse des Animaux), but seems to have gone off it afterwards. JFW | T@lk 10:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Nice article. Tempshill 02:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Kraftwerk used a Vako Orchestron, never a mellotron!

Perhaps this article should have links to http://www.mellotronics.com and http://www.mellotron.com the current manufacturers of mellotrons?

-- DAVID DAVIS



Virtual Mellotron info should be added. Someone who knows more about this stuff should write at least a small paragraph describing software recreations of the Mellotron and giving external links to several of those product's web pages. That was the main reason I looked this up, because I know what they are - and I want one! But I can afford to buy or maintain the real thing.


  • No * - Virtual Mellotron or digital samples of the Mellotron belongs in a separate Wikipedia article.

Inclusion of information on modern manufactured products that attempt to copy the sound of the Mellotron is contrueable as a form of advertising and endorsement of those products. That kind of information does not belong belong in a library quality article of reference on the Mellotron. Accurate Mellotron information is hard to come by and this page was created and used by students, educational institutions, and historians and should not be used as a platform for software manufacturers.

Because of the specialized nature of the instrument, this page needs to stay true to the original subject in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up

I have just reverted changes made by feline1 (talk · contribs) which, while clearing out content not cited to any reliable sources, also removed some of my own attempts to clean up the article, including my citations to the Mellotron history as documented in Clavia's manuals. However, I've tagged the affected areas that I assume the revert was intended for, as I agree we really do need to start pruning out a lot of unreferenced, originally researched content. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - genuine apologies - I didn't realise I was reverting your material. I am seriously considering asking for Page Protection for this article though (i.e. block edits by unregistered users), as that guy has been inserting that same crap now every few months for several YEARS.--feline1 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I can only see two diffs here and here where you've cleaned out stuff. Can you point to diffs that show a similar problem earlier? I think you need stronger evidence to take this to WP:RPP. Having said all of that, this article needs serious cleanup and seems to be a dumping ground for people coming along, saying "oooh I think 'x' played mellotron on 'y'" and adding it without a source. I'm not sure what to do other than just tackle small bits at a time. I have got a copy of the Mellotron book as a good source. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You can see me getting exasperated about this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mellotron#Vandalism above (2008).--feline1 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, but presenting actual diffs would help a request at WP:RPP to protect the article. At any rate, I am slowly picking through the article and sourcing stuff. If I ever finish, it will make it harder for IPs to add unsourced content as it will stand out like a sore thumb. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Special Note

The sections of the article referred to by 'Feline' as 'unsourced' are backed up by both legal documentation and empirical research regarding the selling of Mellotron name in documents from 1991-1997 and trademark infringement warnings from 1999 onward which present the name and copyright as protected under new registration. Legal information is contained in 'Cease and Desist' e-mails or documents sent to would be exploiters. A Google search on 'Mellotron Legal' and 'Mellotron Name' will reveal some of this. Informaton also exists in transcribed form from websites listed on the article page. Another Mellotron book is being released soon that will also detail additional information.

'Feline' doesn't know what he doesn't know. 'Feline' already has a troublesome record with Wikipedia, and is not an objective party regarding Mellotron. 'Feline' is a software user (or seller) in the UK who seems to have vested interests in removing the mention of fraud regarding trademark infringment, as well as the cons (but not the pros) of software samples of the Mellotron. Both pros and cons of software sample history and 'name fraud' are necessarily mentioned in this article. Neutrality has been reviewed and balanced by past/current Mellotron users and software sample users. Feline is the only person who seems to have a problem with this. We also know that 'Feline' has never owned or used a real Mellotron for any credible length of time, and is too young and works too far outside of the music industry to be knowledgable about it's more arcane legal history. 'Feline' (unlike other contributors and reviewers of this article who use Mellotrons, software, were present or have insider knowledge of the legalities regarding Mellotron) is not a professional researcher. We formally request he stop his revisionism of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)‎

Feline removed content that was not verifiable because it was not supported by reliable sources. We don't know if you're making this whole thing up or not, because we have no proof. Although personally I prefer to tag the affected sections than simply remove them, Feline was perfectly within his right to remove unverifiable content. As you can see from the bottom of the screen when you edit : Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Telling people to look for sources is insufficient - the burden is on you to add them - see Referencing for beginners for a guide. You cannot force Feline to stop doing anything - the Main Page says the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please be civil and do not look down on hobbyist researchers as being "unprofessional". If your are tempted to back up your "formal request" with legal action - you will be blocked from Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
User: 221.160.109.38 is an unrepentant repeat offender when it comes to violating wikipedia's policies. They have been pushing their own non-neutral unreferenced blether about "authenticity" on this article for over half a decade now. Most likely they have a business interest in a company making mellotrons and thus WP:COI is relevant here too. The simplest way to deal with them is to request page protection for the article.--feline1 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, aside from laughing at the total erroneous crap spouted about me above, I might also add that www.mellotron.com is a bloody joke of a website, and (as is well documented in the literature) its owners only own the mellotron trademark due to a legal cockup.--feline1 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC).
Both www.mellotron.com and www.mellotronics.com are in the business of making new Mellotrons and selling digital samples. Clearly and logically they would have no business interest in censoring or promoting authenticity vs non-authenticity ideas in this article, nor would any of their customers. Regardlessfeline1 has revealed here his own non-neutral view regarding www.mellotron.com. and aggressively censors information about the varying quality of digital samples (in the 1990's section) because he is a software user or promoter with his own personal angle.

Nothing more need be said about this. His actions clearly speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. As I've explained before, he's removed information because it was original research and not backed up with reliable sources. That's not censoring, that's just following Wikipedia policies. Now knock it off before the article gets semi-protected. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. And for the record, I am not a "software user or promoter". I am also not a total dick. Be seeing you, User:221.160.109.38--feline1 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ritchie - who are you to tell them to 'knock it off?' You are in no position to decide what is original research and what reliable sources are with this particular subject. Feline - We've read your Wikipedia record. We've seen your web page. You use a digital keyboard so you are a software user. Software programs exist in digital keyboards. As for the total dick comment - obviously you've been called this before since these words are in your vocabulary. If you have to try to convince someone you're not a total dick, well..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.121.239.74 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we apply for semi-protection for this article. This trolling vandal clearly has not intention whatsoever of respecting wikipedia policies. They have been doggedly carrying on like this for over half a decade--feline1 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The page does need protection from Feline. Feline is the trolling vandal with a personal interest in censoring information about poor digital samples released in the 1990's, and what constitutes the name 'Mellotron'. He's revealed his dislike and disrespect for one of the Mellotron companies. Why the constant censorship if not for a personal motivation? Were this not the case he would re-write the information he agrees with himself with sources included. Instead he just outright deletes it because it's not fitting with his own personal opinion. He forgets that Wikipedia is a group effort and desires to monopolize control of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You've now violated WP:3RR on top of everything else. Naughty.feline1 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No Feline, you are the one violating WP:3RR. This article has been consistent with the same information for years until you decided you personally didn't like it. Regardless of quality of sources, you keep attacking the same part of the article time and time again without paying attention to the rest of it that lacks inline sources. So you definitely have an agenda. You don't own an analog Mellotron, which is really what this article is about. The other contributors here do, so they are privy to more information than you are. So it appears there's an inherent and underlying bias between you and others including us. If you think the poor digital samples and the 1990's trademark infringement histories don't belong, then you really should also delete all reference to the praise and construed promotional use of digital samples too, but you don't do that. So perhaps you want to delete the section because you are a proponent, user or promoter of the poorly made digital samples cited in it, or perhaps you are violating the trademark name Mellotron somehow in your own music work and don't want to be sued. Either way, no one else has a problem with that section except you. Essentially you are the only one this article needs protecting from. The other contributors to this article are far more knowledgable about the subject and are more than capable of maintaining it without our involvment or yours. Whether the content is put back by us or someone else, the content should always remain there in some form because it's an important part of the history and people deserve to know about it. The alternative is an agreement to eliminate all reference to any digital samples (which maybe is what should happen), because this is an article on the Mellotron and it's history. Use of this article as a platform for modern commerce is inappropriate. Regardless, your revisionism stems from a pretended and selective ignorance of facts. That much is clear. Otherwise, you would highlight questionable text or correct any missing sources satisfactory enough to yourself. The truth is you have a motive. You personally don't want that information here. You've invested considerable effort to eliminate it under the guise of Wikipedia policies, but that's just an excuse you use to manipulate the situation to your advantage. So one of three realities must exist: Either you have a digital sample business, or you've violated the trademark name Mellotron somehow (you openly admit you dislike them), or you simply hate sections about authenticity ideas, trademarks, and standards, and have nothing better to do than to sit back and wait for an edit war because you like it. Ultimately it doesn't matter, your character and your actions speak louder than words, and they speak solely for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you've typed above is utter nonsense. And you've now had a formal warning from an admin on your talk page. I suggest you heed it.--feline1 (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The reviewing admin also suggested you could be more tactful and civil in your approach for this matter. You have a valid concern about unreferenced content, but calling another editor's opinions "utter nonsense" without really saying why doesn't help. Don't get hit by the WP:BOOMERANG. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd care to explain why all his libellous rant is actually valid then, and deserves a considered reply rather than a succint dismissal.--feline1 (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to reply to something if you don't want to. Just ignore it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Ritchie, if there's a screenful of ranting libellous bullshit about me personally on a wikipedia talk page, I don't think it's unreasonable to type a terse statement of rebuttal in reply. --feline1 (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, each to their own - personally I prefer to look at things like this and think relaxing thoughts. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what *you* look at: Google and every other search engine will be looking at the talk page and putting it in search results for decades to come. So I'd prefer to, for the record, state that what our IP address friend said about me was totally untrue. And it's not really helpful to have you hectoring me about it too.--feline1 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
feline, Ritchie is giving you sound advice, and you should be thanking him for it rather than accusing him of "hectoring" you. Also, avoid legal words like "libellous", etc., as they can be a problem on Wikipedia. Please get back to article content and drop this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Try treating me like a human being instead of a wiki-goon and maybe I will.--feline1 (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, ask yourself, when an editor says to me "...you are violating the trademark name Mellotron somehow in your own music work and don't want to be sued", and yet you start warning *me* about WP:NLT and say nothing in admonition to them, are you behaving in a neutral manner? /rolleyes/--feline1 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you, but if you insist on being belligerent, there's not much I can do. Just be aware that you may get in trouble with this kind of attitude towards other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I often do, regularly, for about the past 10 years :) but I don't see why I should change my personality just so I can edit wikipedia. It's supposed to be the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", not the encyclopedia that only bland drones with the passivity of a nun can edit.--feline1 (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll tell you why, civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and if you can't deal with differing opinions and views without getting sarcastic and aggressive, then I'm afraid your methods of working are incompatible with this place. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"Anyone can edit" is also a wikipedia pillar. If you can't apply wikipedia pillars without getting illogical and inconsistent, then I'm afraid your methods of thinking are incompatible with making sense :) --feline1 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
No, that's "Wikipedia is free content" you're getting confused with. Furthermore, WP:NOTANARCHY states "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia." That's kind of why you got blocked several times. Don't get in a position where it happens again. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ritchie, you can WP:LAWYER all day at me, and I can retort with WP:IAR and WP:BUREAUCRACY, and it still won't make the guy who has been doggedly putting his unreferenced non-neutral COI original research rubbish into the mellotron article for over half a decade any less of a WP:DICK.--feline1 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The above insult seems to be your favourite word Feline. Your use of it says a lot about your character, who you are as a person. You are now making this all about you and having your way - which is a really selfish act on your part. It's not about you. It's about all of us here. It's about article accuracy - something you don't want because you'll not profit from that. You have a personal agenda Feline, to have information supressed. Because you don't have an original Mellotron and are a software use and/or promoter, you desire to suppress information that paints some digital samples in a questionable light. You desire a one-sided article expounding the pros of digital sample use, but not the cons. Otherwise, why bother? The only non-neutral person here is you. And you're proving it in your responses by attacking others who don't agree with you. That information about digital sample use & trademark infringement has been there for a long long time. It can already be verified by what sources exist presently. There were sources provided and you've suppressed them.

If all this information was so inaccurate, so off-base, and so untrue, don't you think other 'in the know' Mellotron people would have deleted it? But no one has, because they know that section is accurate. You are the only one who doesn't want it there. You have a personal agenda to see it supressed. If you didn't have a personal agenda, you wouldn't be so emotionally reactive about any of this. You would laugh it off. But you can't do that because you know it's true. Your real character is revealed by your actions. You can scream out all the 'unreferenced' dogma names you want. You can scream out all the drunken bottom-class names you want, but it doesn't change the facts. As others have pointed out here - you have the problem. You have a personal angle here and also a history of being blocked with other articles. As previously stated, your actions speak louder than words, and they speak for themselves.

This article took many people so many years to create. Finding information, sourcing information, checking it, re-checking it etc. It has been contributed to by people 'who were there' at the beginning of the Mellotrons' 50 year history all the way up until this present day. Mellotron owners & users, digital sample owners & users, literature and legal document holders, book writers, film-makers, historians etc. have all given their free time in adding to and providing something that can legally and reliably used by students or anyone else interested in obtaining all the facts.

So for a rogue digital software user who apparently has no love for the original Mellotron to chop-edit and supress sections where poor digital sample use and trademark infringement have historically occurred.....well that's going to give many people great pause.

Essentially, you are trying to play God with this article. You want to supress for it for your own needs. You should expect that many others who helped create this article through years of painful work are going to resist that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Frankly, while I don't condone what feline1 said above, I can easily see what drove him to say it. Please read Help:Introduction to referencing/1 and then Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners carefully. You must add references to your work - as you can see at the top of the page, "Encyclopedia content must be verifiable". If you do not specify where your new additions to articles came from, they may be legitimately tagged or reverted per policy. Since feline1 brought this article to WP:AN3, more eyes are looking at this article now, and more willing to revert your edits, while explaining policy in a more civil manner. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
As you can see clearly yet again, this editor (whichever IP number he has on any given edit) has no intention whatsoever of adhering to wikipedia policies (indeed shows no sign of even understanding what they are). Once more, I suggest we apply for page protection for this article, otherwise we will be reverting in unsourced original research for another half decade. At the very least, his violation of last week's warning should be brought to an admin's attention. Given my incorragible incivility though, perhaps someone else should undertake these chores :) --feline1 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added a warning to the latest IP's talk page. Frankly, if this is only happening once a week, it's not an onerous chore to simply revert per a previous discussion, at least for me. If things escalate and the reverts are more regular and persistent, we can consider page protection then. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
In my view they most definately *are* "regular and persistent". Here is a random example diff from 2009 (!) [1]. Same material, from an IP number. Trawl back through the article history and you'll find many many more. Using the Who-is function on their talk pages, it's always Korean IP. On the basis of their distinctive writing style, I did honestly wonder if this editor was mentally ill, but if they are from Korea I guess it's more likely that English is not their first language. Whilst I agree that both mentally ill people and Koreans should be free to edit English wikipedia articles, they must do so in harmony with wikipedia policies, innit? --feline1 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
My definition of "regular and persistent", which seems to be backed up by the blurb on WP:RPP, is "several times a day by multiple IPs". We're not at that stage yet. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I hope you like M*A*S*H and Team America jokes. I fought in the Korean War, you know, I killed four men ;)--feline1 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As I noted on my talk page in response to feline's post there, I have blocked 221 for one week for abusing multiple accounts. 221 is a static IP from Seoul, and 58 (the latest edit that Ritchie reverted) is a dynamic IP from Seoul. We'll see whether semi-protection will be necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
A career, in Korea, being insincere...? --feline1 (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Feline, there's nothing wrong with identifying the IPs as coming from Seoul, but it would be better to leave it at that and not make cryptic jokes or comments about Koreans that might be misconstrued. I'd also skip the comments about the mentally ill. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, many people find jokes funny, you see. Hilarity is better than hatred. :)--feline1 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The best humour, in my view, has a serious message at its core that's worth listening to. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass being a good example here. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you're being rather unkind to liken our friend to a dead horse. And I will also personally pay you £5 if this really is the last we've seen of him and his special edits. We may have struck him down, but he'll be back! More powerful than you can possibly imagine! etc etc Anyways, I'm off to think fondly about Corporal Klinger....--feline1 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

April 2013

And he's back! Hellp User:Tv Media Network! How have you been? :) --feline1 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I've dropped a friendly note on their talk page. I was discussing with Malleus Fatuorum the other day how hard it was to retrofit reliable sources on stuff, and he recommended to just blow the lot up and rewrite it. Which is what I'll plan on doing soon, using Nick Awde's book and some other stuff. This could easily be a good article with the right editors behind it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

well, for goodness' sake, ritchie, try to keep some of the descriptive stuff while you're weeding. :-) I agree absolutely that this page is no place for the enormous list of bands who may or may not have used the real thing over the last fifty years; andy's "planet mellotron" site & the various other internet fansites are the place for that. I'd also agree that this is no place for the discussion of the various emulations; I'd leave in mention of the other electromechanical instruments (orchestron, chamberlin, birotron) as side-notes, but things like the memotron & the virtual versions deserve only noting as modern attempts to emulate the mellotron, otherwise we'd have to get into every sampler/rompler patch that's ever attempted this, along with all the 70s string machines that occasionally supplanted the mellotron on the questionable grounds of utility or reliability. fwiw, I have a working 400 & ten frames, & at the moment there's a crumar performer sitting on top of it which needs repairing. not far away is an elka rhapsody, ditto. but I digress. I wrote some of the stuff on the page about the reliability & about the nature of the sound; the first four paragraphs under "operation" are mostly my work, & were written before I understood the rules about citations.. it's difficult to provide citations & references for this area, & as an established owner/user, I wonder if I need to. there's a word later in that same paragraph ("inevitable"), & indeed some stuff around the overall balance of the description that I attempted to redress. leave me a note here if you have any thoughts. duncanrmi (talk)

http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/FAQ_-_Miscellaneous#What_is_a_Mellotron_and_have_I_heard_it_in_music_other_than_King_Crimson.27s.3F duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Never got round to getting stuff sourced out of Awde - if I ever get a break over summer I'll return to this - we should be able to keep the reliability ("Tuning a Mellotron doesn't"), sound and other descriptive stuff, but we've got to do something about the "list of bands" that just gets added to again and again by (presumably) well meaning newcomers. Does anybody objecting to any unsourced band stuff going? As Duncan says, Planet Mellotron] is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Wright

Very nice, but not convinced the Mellotron article requires his template? MartinSFSA (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. I've taken a close look at the article having come off the back of taking Hammond organ through a GA review, and it looks a complete train wreck. Hardly anything sourced, still a massive list of "ooh my favourite Mellotron band is" fancruft, while basic things like what happens when you press a key were totally absent. In short - total crap. I have tagged obviously questionable stuff with {{cn}} while I try and find sources for it. I have removed the totally unsourced laundry list of notable users, per our verification policy - unsourced material may be challenged and removed. I may set up List of Mellotron users as a place to put this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Update

I've reassessed the article as C class. Most of the remaining content is now sourced, and I'm reasonably confident the remainder can be, when I've got time. By contrast, there's quite a bit missing about how the instrument works - things like lead versus accompaniment manuals, bank selection, controls. I can get most of that by citing Awde and / or Vail, but it would be nice to get a selection of different sources instead. Watch this space.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie - It's nice to see the sprawling list of bands removed from this article. Thank you for taking the time to remove them and re-do this article into something at least readable. The last edits however, were corrections: you have a spelling mistake with 'is storage' instead of 'in storage'. Also the mention of the Chamberlin is relevant as it was the Mellotron's main competitor. Regarding the Orchestron, and Birotron - Mark Vail's book was originally published in 1996 and is replete with errors about them because little information existed. He essentially re-printed old articles from Keyboard magazine which originally had some inaccuracies. His 2000 reprint carried those errors forward. Pea Hix is a reliable source regarding the Orchestron and other documentation exists showing that less than 100 were made - not 1000. Vail's book also says 100,000 Optigans were made. That is also factually incorrect. And in no way could a toy company like Mattel mass produce a wooden product in numbers as high as that. The numbers should read '1000 Optigans' and '100 Orchestrons' at best. Regarding the Birotron - there is extremely little documentation but it was the advent of the computer chip which ended support for it. Vail's book mentions that no press release was ever issued about that instrument - yet 1970's era newspaper articles on the internet disprove this. Your mention of Vail's mention of Keyboard magazine's mention of Wakeman's mention of 'teething problems' takes this way out of it's original context, which I why I had removed that section. Wakeman himself has 'disowned' that comment since. If you look at other book's aside from Nick Awde's book (which I have) and Mark Vail's book (which I have) you will see the corrections I made are valid. I suggest you read Frank Samagaios's 'Mellotron' book and Peter Forrest's A - Z of analogue synthesizers. They're not perfect books either, but they do have factually correct information supported by people connected to those original companies, which is better than any second hand, or third hand source who writes a book or article on it. Your approach for using sourced information is of course, valid and in keeping with what Wiki is for, but the information your sources cite is flawed in some aspects which is why I suggest you look at multiple sources for the truth, or at least leave it as 'citation needed'. You must also realize that some of the contributors here had, and still have first hand direct involvement with these instruments and can know things that are not yet published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you declaring a conflict of interest? I generally only tag stuff with {{cn}} when it's been in the article for ages and I believe it's possible to cite a source for it. New content should never be added without specifying the source - if you can't be bothered to research your facts properly, why should other people do it for you. Bottom line is - always, always, cite what you write! Anyway, the article has been in a sorry state for a long time and there are more things that are worthwhile to mention that aren't present. What were the standard controls on a Mk II? What were they called? How could you switch sounds? I think we should focus more on content in that direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 04:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
"some of the contributors here had, and still have first hand direct involvement with these instruments and can know things that are not yet published". Ah, the old "I have secret knowledge not available to you" argument. If it's not been published it's not suitable for wikipedia as it's not verifiable. Richerman (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Richerman - yes you are right about 'verifiablity' but there's also the aspect of 'reasonableness'. You don't need a published book to tell you that the sky is blue do you? What I'm saying is some of what gets entered here falls neatly under that aspect as you read the whole article. The information is not secret, just more un-noticed as other subjects because we're talking about an arcane and esoteric area of musical instruments which was never well documented to begin with despite the best intentions of everyone involved. It's best to cut some slack here and leave a 'citation needed'.

Ritchie - I can't always necessarily 'cite what I write' because I just don't have the time to dig these up despite owning all the published books, videos, audio etc. But others who see it here can and will cite it for you. I can almost promise that. I can answer your questions: 'the standard controls on a Mk II are separate volume controls (for each side) a black pitch knob (in the center), mechanical switching buttons for track selection and mixing tracks in A/B configurations, and buttons for cycling each drum-spool of tapes which offers six stations. The right side is divided into lead sounds only, the left side is divided into two sections - rhythms (left) and fills (right). Keys also have a numbering system to be used with a songbook (provided with the machine) which tells you which keys to press to play certain standards of music. The Mk II is a revised version of the Mk I which was identical except that it had no violin sounds and featured mostly organ sounds instead. The standard mahogany Mk II's (and six black Mk IIs') have a tube amplification system with a very slight tonal hum (heard in a very famous song). The grey BBC sound effects consoles have transistor amplification and no-hum (more useful for recording sound effects). There's even a different electrical smell between the two machines'. So this description above is an example of our dilemma with this Wiki article: where would you find this published? Well there is no 'one' book that will give you what I just directly stated. There will be snippets of this information across several books, videos, websites, etc. but you would need some technical knowledge in how the machine works to recognize and put the pieces together to understand this (or access to the owners/tech manuals). I think if we truly care about having a great quality article, we'll have to trust in 'citations needed' and give it the room necessary for this to happen in. You've mentioned that you support this method. And thank you again for removing all the 'bands using Mellotron' (which was mostly untrue), and reference to contemporary digital emulators which are nothing more than indirect product placement. I commend you for your efforts so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.160.109.38 (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  • It's not good telling me on the talk page - they need to be in a reliable source, and I don't think there's an online one. The original manual from Mellotronics (if such a thing existed) would do. It always has to be "sources first - prose second" - you could be mistaken, have forgotten something, or got confused. We don't want lies going into Wikipedia, even if they're done accidentally in good faith. By checking against the source, you've got something to fall back on. I'm afraid my experience from the past year (and indeed generally) is that very few people will come along and provide correct citations for content - it seems to be a very niche activity, sadly. By the way, don't forget to sign posts on talk pages with four tildas (~~~~) and why not create an account too? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing

"Dave Kean, an expert Mellotron repairer, recommends that older Mellotrons should not be immediately used after a period of inactivity, as the tapes can become magnetized in storage and destroy the recordings on them if played"

I don't understand the above sentence - what is meant by "the tapes can become magnetised and destroy the recordings on them if played"? I can understand if the tape head became magnetised that would destroy the recordings but the tapes themselves? If they became magnetised the recordings would be destroyed anyway - what difference would playing them make and what difference would it make if they were left for a while before being used? Also the section about the Moody Blues is rather confused. The section about Mike Pinder makes it sound as if they used the Mellotron from the beginning (1964) but The Moody Blues article says they didn't use it until 1967 after they reformed with Justin Hayward and John Lodge. Richerman (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • The first point is easy, the source (here) says "tape HEADS" and so should the article. For the second point, this article says "Pinder used the Mellotron extensively in the Moody Blues from 1967's Days of Future Passed..." ie: it wasn't used before that, and I wouldn't trust an article tagged {{refimprove}} for nearly six years for anything. How would you word it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is it doesn't say he didn't use it before Days of Future Passed - he could have been using one occasionally before then. As I don't have access to the source it's a bit difficult but, if I've got it right, I would suggest something like "Keyboard player, Mike Pinder, worked at Streetly Electronics for 18 months in the early 1960s as a tester, and was immediately excited by the possibilities of the instrument. In the early days of the Moody Blues he played the piano and Hammond organ but looking for a new sound for the band in 1967, he settled on the Mellotron as the instrument of choice and purchased a second-hand model from Fort Dunlop Working Men's Club in Birmingham." Richerman (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
      • This Planet Mellotron article isn't what we traditionally regard as a reliable source, but I am reasonably confident the facts presented there tie in with the book sources I used. I'll have to dig them out of the cupboard and have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you heard The mellotron story related by Rick Wakeman? You can find it here According to this it was (as I suspected) recorded from BBC Radio 4 in 1997. There's some fascinating stuff in it. Richerman (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have, but since the videos linked on that page are technically copyright violations, I've been loathe to cite them :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Steven Wilson

OK I understand that you deleted my post because I didn't put any references but it's just that I don't know how to do so. If you could please write that Steven Wilson, both in Porcupine Tree [there is even a song called Mellotron Scratch], in his latest albums as a solo artist and in collaborations like in Opeth's Damnation, uses mellotron (and if you can find a reference that he celebrate the 50 year anniversary playing a King Crimson and a Beatles tune) extensively I would really appreciate it. Here are some references: http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-raven-that-refused-to-sing-and-other-stories-mw0002475916 http://memegenerator.net/instance/24291443 http://www.jambase.com/Articles/104081/Steven-Wilson-(Porcupine-Tree)-Third-Solo-Album-in-February He even said that he purchased Fripp's mellotron and would feature extensively on his next album: http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3199665/steven-wilson-drops-very-cool-bit-of-news-regarding-upcoming-solo-album/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.57.165.180 (talk)

It's quite easy to add citations when you know how. At the top of the editing sceeen is a toolbar and just to the left of the dropdown menu called 'Advanced' is a set of double curly brackets (hover over them and it says 'Insert citation'). Click on them and it brings up boxes for various types of citations - in this case you need to use the 'Cite web' option. Click on the box you want and a menu comes up. Fill in the boxes with the information needed - you can copy and paste from the website. When you've done that, make sure the cursor in the text is positioned at the end of the sentence you are adding the citation to (after the full stop (period)) and click 'add citation'. Simples! Richerman (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't really that something isn't unreferenced (if you don't add a reference, but another editor can easily find one, it's good form to do that), but rather that "Notable users" sections of articles tend to accumulate a list of everyone who's ever been vaguely associated with its subject. Therefore we require that good sources to show that someones use of the Mellotron is especially significant or prominent. I have found some good quality sources (such as Keyboard Magazine) that show that Steven Wilson has a significant affinity to the Mellotron, so that information can stay. As an alternative, a breakout article List of Mellotron users could be created. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mellotron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


1: Well-written

Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
    • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
        • The Mellotron is an electro-mechanical, polyphonic tape replay keyboard originally developed and built in Birmingham, England, in 1963.
      • Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
      • Check for Biographies: NA
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
      • Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading (WP:BETTER).
      • Fix the Competitors section. The paragraph is too short.
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done
    • Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done
    • Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
  3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done
 Done


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
    • Who is the author?:
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
    • What else has the author published?:
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

Gosh, thankyou. Given that 18 months ago editors were getting blocked for edit warring on the article, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right. Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands license) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)

Images:
 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
  2. Check for copyright status:  Done
  3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
  3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done


I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

  • I think the layout needs to be fixed.
Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading (WP:BETTER).
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Fix the Competitors section. The paragraph is too short.
As you can see from the lengthy archives on the talk page, the section was longer but 221.160.109.38 (talk · contribs) objected to its factual accuracy based on the sources I have and so I removed it pending better sources, which never turned up. I am loathe to expand a section for sake of expanding without some good quality reliable sources. An alternative is we just chop this section out. What would you advise? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I confess I'm not quite sure. You're right but I think it should not be removed. So let's leave it as it is. Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "It evolved from the earlier Chamberlin, a similar instrument, but could be mass-produced more effectively." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow?)
Reworded and cut down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The instrument works by pulling a section of magnetic tape across a head when a key is pressed, and provides a mechanism to select different sounds." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow? For example: When a key is pressed, a section of magnetic tape is pulled across a head … )
Reworded and cut down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The bandleader Eric Robinson and television personality David Nixon were heavily involved in the instrument's original publicity."

(definite article needed before "television personality"?)

I would have thought "television personality" is an adjective, so the definitive article is not appropriate. Can you clarify as to what your intent is? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I misjudged it. Apologies. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Mellotron's popularity greatly increased following its prominent use by The Beatles and by subsequent groups including The Moody Blues and King Crimson, as well as being a notable instrument in progressive rock generally." (Can you rephrase it? The part "as well as being a notable instrument in progressive rock generally" doesn’t seem to fit in.)
Reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The instrument's popularity waned, however, due to the introduction of polyphonic synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s, , and production ceased in 1986." (Can you rephrase it? or break into simpler sentences? For example: Despite a number of high profile uses from Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and XTC, the popularity of the instrument waned after the introduction of polyphonic synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s. As a result, the production ceased in 1986.)
Copyedit to cut down on the word count. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Mellotron has a similar behaviour to a sampler, but generates its sound via audio tape." (or "The Mellotron has a behaviour similar to a sampler, but generates its sound via an audio tape."?)
I'm not really keen on that - it's more words. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "One note of the frequently used string sounds reportedly contains the sound of a chair being scraped in the background." (Why reportedly?)
Because that's what the source says! I've specifically attributed it to the author Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the sentence "While tapes were designed to last years, continual movement of the instrument, and transfer between cold storage rooms and hot lighting on stage could cause the tapes to stretch and stick on the capstan." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
Cut down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Robert Fripp infamously stated that "Tuning a Mellotron doesn't"." (Is it correct? I’m not sure what’s infamous in the quote?)
I've cut out "infamous" but the quotation is just as Fripp said it and a search for it returns numerous hits. This source said he famously said it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The earlier 1960s MK II units", "backing tracks on the Mk II's left hand", "the MKII, was released the following year" (consistency issue: Which one of "Mk II" is correct? Or it doesn’t matter?)
Consistency is definitely important. Sources are wildly inconsistent (an official manual from Streetly Electronics mentions no model, book sources vary between "MkII", "MKII" and "Mark II". Nick Awde and Andy "Planet Mellotron" Thompson use "MkII", so I am going with that. However, to be seriously confusing, models from "Mark V" upwards are spelled out in full. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Ritchie333, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, Ritchie333, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Operation

I don't think the article fully explains the how the mellotron works. Looking at this I would propose something like:

Under each key is a mechanism similar to a tape recorder, comprising a capstan that pulls an audio tape across a magnetic head. Once the mellotron is switched on the capstan is constantly turning, and when a key is pressed a pinch roller attached to the key pushes the tape against the capstan and a felt pad pushes it against the playback head. As long as the key remains depressed the tape is drawn over the head and the recorded sound is played, for a maximum time of eight seconds. As the tape plays it is folded up into a wooden compartment and, once the key is released, a spring pulls it back to its original position, ready to be played again.

Does that sound OK? Also, do all models use the three track tape described in the article I've referenced? Richerman (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The long-term plan I had was to make an animated diagram out of File:Mellotron diagram.svg and File:Mellotron2.jpg which shows the operation graphically. I wanted to keep technical terms brief to satisfy readers who come here just to find out about "that thing that's got that funny noise at the start of Strawberry Fields). I would go with something like:
"Inside the instrument is a continuously rotating capstan. When a key is pressed, a pinch roller pulls a tape connected to it across a playback head, like a tape recorder. While the key remains depressed, the tape is drawn over the head, and a sound is played. When the key is released, a spring pulls the tape back to its original position. Because tapes are not looped, each note has a fixed time of eight seconds." The source used (Nick Awde's "Melltron Book" pp. 16-17) is a two page spread devoted to the machine's operation, so it probably has all this.
PS: All standard Mellotron models have three track tape, but the tape width is different. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Until the diagram is done we could really do with something there, perhaps referring to the numbered parts on the one that is already there. A couple of things - isn't it the rotating capstan that pulls the tape? Secondly, "a fixed time of eight seconds" makes it sound as if the note has to last eight seconds whereas it's a maximum of eight seconds. One other thing I've wondered - wouldn't it have been easier to use tape loops that play for as long as the key is depressed? Richerman (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've redone the description on the picture and annotated everything, which should get us most of the way there. By "fixed", what I mean is that the recording of all instruments is eight seconds long, but it's your choice to cut it short, if you see what I mean. As for using loops, no idea, probably ease of manufacturing, though decades later somebody really did do it.
PS: Nice to see somebody else take an interest in this article that isn't just moaning about their favourite non-notable or semi-notable player who used it once appearing (or not) in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That looks good now. As an old Beatles and Moody blues fan (and a very poor guitar player) I've had a long time interest in this sort of technology. Especially after seeing the Moodies live at the Isle of Wight Festivals in 1969 and '70 and wondering how they got that sound. Richerman (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have had the privilege of meeting Andy "Planet Mellotron" Thompson and playing his M-400 and collection of tape frames. If I ever get a chance to go back, it would be nice to swap my Nord Stage 2 "3 violins" sample for the real deal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Owners

There have been several attempts to add "The Mellotron trademark was purchased in 1991 by David Kean of the Audities Foundation and is currently run by Markus Resch out of Stockholm, Sweden." (or variations of that) without any source. Certainly the sources I do have give the Bradley family the credit for the instruments and consider them to be the rightful owners, and though there is the Gordon Reid source, I have seen all sorts of problems in using old Sound on Sound articles on Hammond organ and elsewhere as they seem to be full of factual errors. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mellotron/Archive_1&oldid=1143193359"