Talk:Dusty Springfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dusty Springfield article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Perfectionist?

The article claims that Springfield did many re-dubs because she was a "perfectionist". I'd suggest it was because she wasn't half the singer we have been brainwashed into believing she was. Her out of tune squawking on the tunes she recorded with the Pet Shop Boys are testament to this.

Guv2006 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although it's not up to us as individual editors to "make a judgement" about Dusty's status as an icon (that would be POV) it is safe to say that she can be classified as one. Her biographies mention this, as well as a documentary produced in the UK. (for example, the Royal Albert Hall concert and her comments about "royalty isn't confined to the box" and "let out a manly growl or a girlish shriek, I don't care who does which" etc etc etc.) Frankly, I think the article should mention more about her sexuality, as that too is verified in the biographies and the documentary. This appears, however, to have been part of the article before and then deleted. But, back on topic, yes, I would say it's safe to categorize her as a gay icon. NickBurns 14:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

Why should there be more information about her sexuality? she was a fabulous singer and a talented woman, so why should it matter anyway?

It would be honest to mention that she was a lesbian. That is an important factor that shaped and guided her life. To leave that out leaves the reader with only a partial view of her. mptwiki 8:28, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The fact that mention of her sexuality is objected to (when references to the spouses and children of public figures is commonly accepted as biographical information) is proof enough that homophobia exists and needs to be rectified by such things as inclusive biographical information about public figures.

The oblique references to her "sexuality" are ambiguous. From the current text, a reader could assume she was a promiscuous heterosexual, and not a lesbian. She is well recognised as a famous lesbian, so this should be clear in the article.

I think it would be appropriate to list the fact that she was a lesbian in the article not in trivia! It would never be listed as trivia that someone had a husband or that they weer female. Gfad1 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to address the sexuality issue - especially vis a vis the last few comments. A lot of the resistance about listing her as a lesbian comes from her ***own inner circle***, particularly her close friend Simon Bell, who was a backup singer for her and runs the "Dusty Devotedly" site. I am not sure whether it's a matter of debate about whether she was or not - or, as I suspect, the fact that her friends feel it's "not important" and might tarnish her image. Please don't shoot the messenger...I'm just sharing what I've seen and read on some of the sites.

The other conflict is that we have two biographies of Dusty; one states she's straight (or implies she's more straight than not) and the second one completely pulls her out of the closet. So there is some debate there. (I am more apt to believe the second one, since it was co-written by her manager Vicki Wickham.) NickBurns 15:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to add a section on her sexuality. I attempted to address the fact that there is some debate about this, rather than make it black or white. NickBurns 03:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I admire the efforts of Dusty's dear friends to protect her memory, they are doing an incredible disservice to history, not to mention the very gay population to which some of them belong. It may be none of our business, but if she failed to protect it and it has entered the public eye (as George Michael's sexuality did in more infamous fashion), either by first hand accounts or skillful reconstruction, then it is now part of history. We cannot change the facts. (unsigned comment)

Agreed - but we also don't have definitive statements from the artist in question. Remember that under every editing window, the phrase "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" appears. Carole Pope appears to have been one of her lovers, but it's still second-person account. Yes, it should be mentioned, but it needs to be mentioned in context, not as the gospel truth. NickBurns 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that having a whole section devoted to her sexuality and called like that is wrong. I think it should be trimmed and integrated in her life section. Her sexuality was not such a big part in the public eye and therefore should not be give such a chunk of the article. It draws away from what she is known for, namely her TALENT. People not trusted with he read this article and might think that she was a lesbian singer, and no more. Dollvalley 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

Hi Nick Burns... Just wanted to say that I thought the section on Dusty Springfield's sexuality was handled fairly and appropriately. The topic needed to be addressed -- you did so in a manner that allowed the several sides of the issue to come to light. Good show! jacinto2997

Ditto, despite my favoring grown-up honesty, this was well handled for all sides. tednor
Just seeing this now. Thanks for the comments. I do think in the absence of an "I am what I am!" moment from her, that this was the fairest way to deal with it. NickBurns 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songwriters

There should be more mention to the people who wrote her songs. I had no idea that she was or may have been a lesbian or gay icon, or anything like that. I dont see how any of it is relevant. What is more relevant is who wrote the songs which are mentioned and the songs which she is known for. There is references to the Bacharach-David partnership, but no specific songwriting credits given when songs are mentioned. This is what is important and what needs addressing in this article.

[edit] Wishin' and Hopin'

No mention of this one even though lots of people like that song the best.

Story to steal topic, but I am "Wishin' and Hopin'" that more people continue to fill in the many gaps in the story of this incredible and most singular talent. I took immediate license from the "dive right in" advice of the Wiki. Every time I visit this page I come up with something to offer and know that if it is not right someone will fix it. There should be more here. Dusty accomplished and stood for some of the most amazing things in popular music, we owe it back to her that she be honored for each and every one! And please someone start gathering quotes from Dusty's peers so that her "excellence" is not dismissed as POV. She is perhaps the only singer who could draw wide and diverse quotes of praise from the broadest sampling of the industry, Let's put those quotes here for her please.tednor

11/30/06 Removing statement about Grammy win by the Springfield's. Please provide source for this information, if any.

[edit] People with absolute pitch

I would love to see Dusty added to this group, and I remember Jerry Wexler's mention of her "miraculous" pitch, but not sure the location of that quote. Can someones who knows of sources (or is qualified to quote himself as a professional musician) please place Dusty there if this is true? thanks--Tednor 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I just noticed that this article has next to no references in it. I'm not sure, but I think some earlier ones may have been deleted. I'm going to go through and try to re-enter those. In the meantime, I have temporarily added the references tag to the main article. NickBurns 17:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I close my eyes and count to ten.....

...and when I open them again.....there is STILL an insane content dispute going on in this article. *sigh*

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being a boss here, or if it seems like I'm being demanding. And I DO NOT OWN this artlcle. But I have major concerns....several things are happening. There are a lot of editors to this article right now who are new to Wikipedia - who have not completely gotten the hang of Wikipedia, who don't understand that statements in the article need supporting documentation, who want to make this a Dusty tribute (as well meaning as that is, it's a NO NO) and who don't understand basic Wikipedia formatting enough to even make comments on their talk pages or on others correctly. AND on top of all that, we have a content dispute over something relatively silly.

Those folks may want to read the following:

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man. This was for whoever made the comment that "Dusty wouldn't like what you've added to the article". In other words, one doesn't need to overdo it.

I love Dusty's music a lot, believe me. But I am, first and foremost, an objective Wikipedia editor. I believe in this project and what it's capable of, and to do Ms. Springfield's legacy proud, it would be great to have a well-written, encyclopedia, neutral, objective article, rather than a mish-mash that gets edited every 20 seconds. I hope this can be resolved. NickBurns 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swing out Sister

Given that substantial portions of the Trivia section have been trimmed, I cannot fathom why Swing Out Sister should remain. The fact is that Springfield had fabulous taste in songs and quite a few musicians have covered one or two or three of the same numbers (Dionne Warwick, Cyndi Lauper, Alison Moyet, The Carpenters, etc...). Seems to me an arbitrary chance to mention Swing Out Sister (or am I missing something?).--Tednor 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last plea for peace in the links war

Okay, I've tried to help folks resolve this issue, or to get people to agree to disagree. There have been 250 edits to this article in the last month, and 95% were (a) about these links and (b) by the same half-dozen people. Differences of opinion are to be expected, but ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

I propose the following:

  • Please work this out amongst yourselves and come to an agreement. Please do so in a week's time (by 1/12/07).
  • If the link war is still going on then, but people are open to mediation, I will happily assist you by submitting the case for mediation. You would need to understand that the administrator's word is pretty final in these cases.
  • If no one is willing to mediate and these edits continue, I will contact the administrators about EVERY editor involved (whether they have a user name or IP address).

In the spirit of what Wikipedia is about I would strongly suggest people work this out amongst themselves and make this a collaboration, rather than a war. NickBurns 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plea for Ravenfire et al to leave the links alone

Hello,

I am Forum Admin at Let's Talk Dusty, and would like to stress that the teams behind the links listed in this article get along perfectly well, and are often members of each other's forums.

The person deleting and messing with the links is an outsider.

I have reason to believe (from IP number and choice of words on the Talk pages) that the person in question - known as Ravenfire et al - had his membership revoked on (at least) two of the forums due to misbehaviour, namely on Let's Talk Dusty (LTD) and Dusty Springfield Network (DSN). His behaviour here seems to be some petty revenge, and both the admins of LTD and DSN have tried to restore the links when they had been sabotaged by him.

If there is any way the links could be protected from further sabotage, it would be very helpful. Thank you for your assistance so far. LTD team 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Can I please say that the above is utter lies.
The person they think I am (they clearly have no idea about proxy servers) has made a statement on his old site:
I am not he, in fact I am a she!!!
I think the cruel nature of the post above is just cause for its removal.
Jan (Ravenfire 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Links

The constant adding and removal of the links on this article is driving me barmy. It really is very silly. I don't think that Message Board links are appropriate as they are only listed for advertising purposes. Links should only be listed that work as a reference to the actual article itself. We add that that criteria, then none of the links currently listed should be there.

What do other Editors think?

Jan (Ravenfire 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] No Response?

I'm trying to talk with you all here!?! I've removed the sales and promotional links once more, in spite of the vandals trying to mess it all up. Some chat on this discussion page would be good as I wish to work with fellow Editors and not fight with them. Janet (Ravenfire 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC))—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenfire (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Link wars

I'm going to ask this one more time. Have your forum wars on your forums. This page, or the article, is not the appropriate place. As to the question of which forums or fansites should be linked from the article, I have an easy answer. None of them. Please do not reinsert the links. WP:NOT a link farm. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a great resolution, Seraphimblade. In the absence of an "official" website, this is probably the best route to go. NickBurns 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bits and Pieces

Wasn't "Bits and Pieces" composed by Dominic Frontiere? 74.103.207.88 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template and compilations discography

Hi there. I created a template for the original studio albums and added it to the bio and discography pages. Hope it's OK with you - if not just delete them. About compilations; with so many compilations being released and so few of them offering something new, how about a guide to the ones actually worth buying or searching for. Just an idea...

(83.226.211.46 13:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC))dreamer.se

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dusty Springfield Complete A&B.jpg

Image:Dusty Springfield Complete A&B.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 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 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RECORDING

Dusty Springfield carried out some of her early U.S. track recordings at the 914 Sound Studios in Blauvelt, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyackhigh (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

This page seems to have had a lot of abusive external link additions and deletions, along with inappropriate comments aimed at various people. A standard way suggested by the encyclopedia's External link guideline, WP:EL, to deal with articles where there are many similar sites that could be linked is to add a link to the appropriate Dmoz category. I've added that. 2005 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, it's a good solution. Erikupoeg (talk) , 11:27 12 March 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Second Paragraph Opening Statements.

mm... I do realize that she is a soul singer and although I understand this comment "Dusty Springfield sang as if born with black American soul,[10] while making no effort in sounding black." it is a little offensive to both blacks and whites. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. PhoenixPrince (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker and I'm white, so I don't have any points to make, except for one: if any black person here on Wikipedia is offended by the terms 'black people' and 'black soul' used in Dusty Springfield article, please feel free to express that on this talk page. Erikupoeg (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I'm of mixed parentage, and I'm offended. Not so much by the sentiments, but by the bad writing. How about, "Dusty Springfield's distinctive vocal style was influenced by American soul and R&B singers such as (name a few examples)." 99.230.227.201 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if You provide sources for that. The present statement has got two. (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the criticism again. The poster isn't saying the material is unsourced. The poster is saying the material, sourced or not, is badly written and is trying to offer a reasonable alternative.
In fact, in this case the sources are irrelevant, as the statements are ludricrous. "Dusty Springfield sang as if born with black American soul" is utterly meaningless in any factual context. What definitive, factual source could possibly back up this statement? It's an opinion, masquerading as a piece of information. The statement "while making no effort in sounding black" is also completely unquantifiable -- who says so? And how could they KNOW what Springfield's intentions may or may not have been in this area?
The point is that the poster above is trying to make the statement both clear and factual: that Dusty Springfield's distinctive vocal style was influenced by African-American soul and R&B singers. Full stop. And there are many sources that could be pointed to that actually make this claim -- including the sources from which the above opinions about Springfield's style and intentions were sourced. 141.117.210.184 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but it still misses the fact that while singing soul music, Dusty sounded distinctively white. In other words, Dusty never did a good copy of black singers, but developed her own, white sound. I think, we should keep that in mind, while re-writing the section. Erikupoeg (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gushing...

In the section "A Girl Called Dusty", a claim is made that Her pioneering choice of material by the songwriters Burt Bacharach, Hal David, Randy Newman and Carole King was exemplary.

While the tone of this entire article is almost comically gushing, this particular statement simply beggars belief.

"Pioneering?" By 1964, Bacharach and David were well-established songwriters -- Bacharach was writing hit songs as early as 1957. Teaming up with Hal David a little later, by 1964, Bacharach and David had already penned many big hits for Dionne Warwick, Gene Pitney and Chuck Jackson (among others). Bacharach and Hal's brother Mack David also wrote the big 1961 hit "Baby It's You" for The Shirelles, which had been covered by the Beatles in '63. The point is that by '64, whether in the US or the UK, these guys were well-known, proven hitmakers -- covering their songs in 1964 was hardly pioneering.

Same with Carole King, who was also a well-established songwriter by 1964, having already co-written huge hits for Little Eva (The Loco-Motion, Keep Your Hands Off My Baby), The Shirelles (Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow), The Drifters (Up On The Roof) and even having had a solo hit as a performer (It Might As Well Rain Until September) as early as 1961. Covering King's work in 1964 may have shown taste, but not anything approaching a pioneering spirit.

Now covering Randy Newman in 1964? That would have been pioneering. However, the actual number of Randy Newman songs on A Girl Called Dusty -- even the CD version with bonus tracks -- is exactly zero (0). 172.132.3.163 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well caught 172.132.3.163 whoever you are. The unbelievable claim is removed but so also are several of the song writers it mentioned. Someone may like to name them in connection with their particular songs.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Is there any actual evidence that Springfield was of Irish origin or a practicing Catholic? Short of reliable sources, we will need to trim a couple of categories and a sentence from this article. And no, IMDB is not a reliable source for this sort of thing. --John (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the current source in the article, the Observer? 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ugh...

Quite a bit of this article is fawning opinion, not fact. The worst offender (in my opinion), occurs in the opening paragraphs:

Her oddly erotic,[6][14] husky voice[10][3] communicated a sense of longing that demanded the listener's attention.[15] Springfield sung around her material, rather than taking possession of her songs.[11] Her singing had depth, while presenting direct and simple statements about love.[11]


It matters not a whit that these statements are 'sourced'. Everything presented in these sentences is merely an opinion that is not factually quantifiable by any source. In the interests of fairness, though, I haven't yet removed these sentences, as I believe that people should have a chance to respond to these concerns. But I strongly believe that these sentences seriously detract from the article and should be dropped -- not simply rewrtten, but completely removed from the article.

Any argument? 172.169.146.140 (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that the statements lack neutral point of view. An article about a singer needs facts about the way she sings. And there is no way in hell, that you're gonna get quantified data on that. Take the featured article of Kate Bush for instance. It claims, that Kate Bush's singing is 'surreal'. Although not quantifiable, the statement adds very well to the article. What an encyclopedia needs, is the 'general' perception of the person's singing style. Looks like the article does not catch it yet, but merely presents opinions of single critics. I encourage wikipedians to find sources, that present neutral statements about the general perception of Dusty Springfield's singing style. Until we do, I suggest to keep the present Artistry section and its summary in the lead section. Erikupoeg (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess one can pick and choose among adjectives in published sources (that no one has objected to). I like "intimate and heartbreakingly urgent voice" [3] and don't care for "husky" which I don't find sourced. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, picking and choosing among publshed sources is exactly the problem. Because before you know it, we'll get a list of adjectives from all over the place, which will include such patently unquantifiable things as "oddly erotic". Or (in the case of Kate Bush), "surreal". Counter to Erikupoeg above, I'd argue that describing Bush's singing voice as "surreal" is an utterly meaningless description to put in an encyclopedia. What does does that actually mean? I've listened to Kate Bush, and her voice has always sounded real to me...
Also contrary to Erikupoeg, I'd argue that keeping the Artistry section and its summary (in its current form) actually hurts the article. The argument that's being presented is that what's in the article is better than nothing -- but I beleive that, because it's NPOV and not especially well-written, it's actually worse than nothing. It damages the integirty of the article, calling everything that's written in it into question. So rather than keep something that (I think) we all agree is flawed, why not remove it until we can come up wth an acceptable alternative? 172.132.234.33 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In a sense we say that everything in Wikipedia is flawed, meaning that we go on working to improve it. It is notable that a singer, in this case Dusty Springfield, inspired a published statement such as the sultry intimacy and heartbreaking urgency of Springfield's voice transcended image and fashion - Jason Ankeny[1]. Whether you characterise this as admiration or fawning ("hear hear!" or "ugh ugh!") is POV. Whether it encapsulates well the perception of her listeners, that is the question.
I agree with 172.132.234.33 that "oddly erotic" does not bear scrutiny: the only way it should be included is in the form described once as "oddly erotic"[2] which is true but IMO insufficiently notable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There've been enough positive suggestions here on this forum not to delete the section but re-write it. I totally agree, that we should'nt go for a list of every possible adjective on the Web, but I can assure you guys, this is not the case here. I'll go with Cuddlyable3's idea to present notable statements about her singing style as quotes from established sources. Erikupoeg (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)