Talk:More cowbell/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

SNL Skit

I believe the phrase "needs more cowbell" is a reference to a SNL skit. Should that be mentioned on this page? Also, why does "more cowbell" redirect to "cowbell"?

I'm trying to figure out why a page for this even exists. It's in better condition than a lot of articles of more serious nature. Shadowrun 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

-137.118.227.119 17:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC) SNL has not been funny since the '80s.

Believing that SNL has sucked since their teenage years is each generation's rite of passage. See this Onion article. --Saforrest 22:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
lol, true. However, I too think the '80s was it's prime though. Shadowrun 01:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Animated GIF

I find that animated GIF highly irritating. Does anyone else feel the same? --mdd4696 03:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Use a still! --70.160.160.175 00:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Batkins
Agreed. Too distracting from the text. What is this, hampsterdance? -Joshuapaquin 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It expresses the cowbell's power better than a still would :( --I am not good at running 09:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with IANGAR. The .gif shows the vigorous nature in which Frenkle attacked his incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabuBhatt (talk • contribs)
Agree with IANGAR. The .gif should stay as it shows the vigorous nature which which Frenkle cultivated the clanks from his instrument. BabuBhatt 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest fellas, I think what we need is more animated gif. keith 21:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Agreed. - CorbinSimpson 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC) I want it to stay, but I know it's not right for the article. It's distracting, but awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaderaid (talk • contribs) I agree. It's cool and all, but not encyclopedia material. Take it down.--Danmerqury 20:04 16 April 2006 (UTC) Behold the awesome power of Gene Frenkle's cowbell. Keep it on the site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.136.240 (talk • contribs) That.. that doesn't work for me. I gotta have more animated gif! But seriously, it is distracting and there's nothing particularly special shown in the gif that just saying "vigorously" doesn't add. There is, after all, a link to the whole skit. --C S (Talk) 08:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Should definately be a still. Does anyone have one? Skittle 19:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be a still.--Greece666 00:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be a still. Saintamh 20:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The anigif is one of the most widely circulated pictures that illustrate the sketch, and a still would definitely not capture the hitting of the cowbell well enough. With a still, it might look as if he's just holding the cowbell and making a funny face. I don't think it's that distracting. With the anigif, it shows how energetically Mr. Frenkle is playing that cowbell. Voretus the Benevolent 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it might look like he's just making a funny face; that's why we use words to describe what he does, e.g., "Frenkle's exuberance causes him to bump into his bandmates in the cramped studio." We can also use more words like "vigorously" when describing him "happily banging away". If your objection is that words and a still don't convey exactly how the skit looks, well, that's true of a lot of stuff and that's why we provide links to the actual footage of the skit. --C S (Talk) 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Use a still. The animated GIF looks like something from a MySpace page, and doesn't really add anything useful to the article. Sxeptomaniac 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and replaced the gif because it seemed like everyone wanted to. Patrick 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I put it back because half the people were arguing for keeping it up, and half of the people wanting it down hardly represents a consensus. I think that the gif's illustrative value overshadows any potential distraction it might cause (which I don't think is there anyways, but that's not just for me to decide). Voretus the Benevolent 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So far there are 12 people against the animated gif, and 5 for. This "5" includes Keith, who appeared to be joking, but just to be fair...and to be even more fair, I dug through the edit history and found an anon comment that had been deleted and included it in the "5". So it's more accurate to say 2/3 are against, and 1/3 are for. (I'm not including Patrick, who I believe made the proper judgment as to consensus). I'm going to let your revert stand for a while and see if there are more opinions, but really, there is more than enough consensus to take action. --C S (Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We must have different definitions of consensus. Consensus isn't a majority opinion. It's not a democracy here. With so many wanting the gif to stay, it should stay as is until everyone can reach an agreement. Voretus the Benevolent 06:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one that brought up the numbers game. You were, with your incorrect statement as to half and half. I was well aware of the numbers for quite some time, but I thought it best to engage in more discussion before taking action. I'm more than aware that consensus does not equate to simple vote-counting. But when a majority of editors say "remove the animated gif", and a few say "no", that is a strong indication there is consensus to remove. You seem under the impression that consensus means debating this until everyone agrees. That is incorrect. --C S (Talk) 07:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You got my impression wrong. Also: Numbers do matter in the way I was using them, just not in the other way. They're two different situations. Voretus the Benevolent 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see my view of your position is incorrect. So then, you do agree that if pretty much everyone agrees to something, that is consensus? I was using the numbers, as I said above, as a way to gauge consensus (or lack of). And so were you, I believe, when you brought up the incorrect numbers.
I don't see that polling is as ineffective in this situation as you say. The matter here is fairly black and white, without many of the subtle nuances that occur, say, in a debate about politics. It's also a matter where there is very little to discuss: if you don't find something distracting or if you believe words and pictures cannot do justice to the skit without an animation, I see very little more that can be said in discussion. It basically comes down to an opinion about one thing. And polls are very effective in this kind of situation in determining if almost everyone has the same opinion. --C S (Talk) 07:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the animated vs. still image issue, but I'll throw my vote behind using a still. More than anything, I think that there is a strong consensus as is, and that should be good enough to make the switch. Croctotheface 07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I would like to add that I too believe that the gif should not be in the article. So add one vote for that. Patrick 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Add a vote for the image to stay -- gotta have more cowbell! But feel free to move it lower in the article so it isn't as distracting. --Rehcsif 20:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Agree, use a still. feydey 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I think the gif should remain, still images just will not fully or correctly express the topic of the article. ArgentiumOutlaw 16:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC) The GIF must remain. Removing it would be a big mistake for two reasons. Firstly, on the broader point, to say that moving images should be banned from articles because they are distracting is to dismiss one of the defining virtues of Wikipedia, that being that it is an online virtual document. Why would you want it to be stiff and static like a page in a book? Single words ('vigorous'), or any number of words for that matter, are not identical to moving images and cannot convey the same information. The two support each other. And to suggest that moving images are unnecessary when a brief written description is included ignores that truth. The internet is exceptional for the distribution of all forms of media and that should be fully embraced in Wikipedia. Secondly, as has been touched on by others above, that one image perfectly illustrates the subject of the article. The humor of the SNL sketch is in selling the joke that everyone loves the cowbell despite the fact it is so annoying. Well, that GIF is annoying in precisely the same way. It commands your attention... you want to turn away but you can't! You must watch! We need more cowbell! Threephi 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Whether or not the "comedic effect" of the sketch relies on the GIF, it's unnecessary, distracting and should go. The purpose of the article isn't to tell the joke, but talk about the joke. That's why there's a link to the video.Painaxl 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) I feel compelled to point out that, in most browsers, if you press Escape after the page has loaded, the animation will stop. --ozzmosis 07:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly a reason why the animation is better. It's also true that most readers could use their thumb to cover the image (or any flaw in any article) but that wouldn't be a convincing argument to leave misspellings and the like alone. For what it's worth, I've changed my position from reluctantly supporting switching to a a still to wholeheartedly supporting such a change. The animated gif makes the article look more like a fanpage than an encyclopedia entry. It's got to go. Croctotheface 10:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the animated graphic is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia and needs to go. My question is, why hasn't it been removed yet? Do we still feel that no consensus has been reached? I'd be bold and do it myself, but after this much time and discussion, I'm wondering if maybe there's a reason nothing's been done... Beginning 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How is an animated image inappropriate for an encyclopedia? I couldn't find anything in the manual of style or elsewhere prohibiting animated images (though I will admit that I haven't looked through all the arguments above; just launching in with your comment). The GIF in question clearly defines the concept that the article covers, which is why I feel that it should remain. EVula 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the animated gif should stay, and I like the reason threephi gave. I think many people have too narrow an idea of what an encyclopedia can be. Just because Britannica doesn't do it doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't. Wikipedia should explore and exploit all that its medium has to offer. If an image is intended to provide the reader with an idea of what the topic is about, an animated image does so to an even more precise degree. I do not find the animated image to be distracting in the least. Panzer raccoon! 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep the gif. "Too distracting"? Good Lord. Gzuckier 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the reason that nobody has made a change is twofold: first, those who support the animated gif are vocal, and anyone who would change it is discouraged to do so for fear of starting an edit war. The one time it was changed, someone else put it back despite what seems to me was a solid consensus for a still. Second, I suspect that very few people actually visit this article or truly care about maintaining it. To be honest, I don't really buy any of the positive arguments for the moving image. Somehow, the explanatory power of the article is supposedly enhanced by seeing Will Ferrell wearing a crazy beard and hitting the cowbell. Honestly, I don't think the point of the sketch is that Gene Frenkle is so happy to hit the cowbell, but that Bruce Dickinson is psychotic and obsessed about the cowbell, which is clearly annoying to a sane person listening to the recording. (Also, if the argument is that Gene's cowbell playing is annoying and so is the gif, so it should stay, that's pretty ridiculous.) I read a lot of Wikipedia articles, and I don't think I've seen another animated gif ANYWHERE. Is this the only one that deserves it? Is there no better place to have an animation? To be honest, I think that people who support keeping the animation feel as they do simply because they personally get a kick out of both the sketch and the image. Wikipedia is not a fan page. I suspect that people who are not fans of the sketch, and especially people who never heard of it, would look down on the article simply because it has the animation. I'll wait a bit and then go ahead and remove the image. To be honest, i think that Image:I'm-Bruce-Dickinson.jpg captures the sketch much better anyway. Croctotheface 09:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree keep the gif. Cat 05:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC) The gap has closed to 18-13 (including those who have been removing and replacing) in favor of replacing the animated gif; however the "replace with still" camp is still ahead. Someone has added back the animated gif and said it was "removed without discussion" when there is in fact a discussion and it so far indicates more want to remove it. If the numbers flip, then feel free to add back the animation. --C S (Talk) 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Keep the animation. Why? Simply because I personally get a kick out of both the sketch and the image. It's not clear to me there's a policy against enjoying something on Wikipedia. I've enjoyed this page and that animation for a long time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, this is not a remotely relevant reason to take any sort of action. And the idea that the only way you could be wrong is if there is a "policy against enjoying something" is a straw man. A better question would be whether there is a policy that says that "enjoying something" is an adequate reason to take an action. I suspect there is no such policy. Croctotheface 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to comment on Croctotheface's comment above about whether the animation does really give a good portrayal of the skit. It's strange that people would think the animated gif somehow demonstrates the unusually "vigorous" or "energetic" way in which Ferrell is hitting the cowbell. The animated scene is actually from a part of the skit when he's not actually being that wild. He gets far more "in the face" of the singer and has far funnier expressions on his face in other parts of the skit. All I see that the animation adds is that you see the movement of him hitting the cowbell, which, frankly, is not that particularly unique or imaginative. --C S (Talk) 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

None of this would've ever happened if whoever originally added an image to the page had used a still. It probably wouldn't have dawned on anybody to use an animated version. This discussion isn't progressing anywhere though; everyone arguing for the animated gif are making specious arguments like "It's funny", and everyone against end up sounding persnickety. It should be a still because that's how we do things around here. Rufous 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"It should be a still because that's how we do things around here." Now that's the specious argument of the month. Gzuckier 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep animated version on article. I don't personally see any particularly strong arguments to remove it. --Durin 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What is the particularly strong argument to put it in? I haven't seen one; people have argued (in one form or another) that somehow it's needed or a gross disservice is being done to readers, but I don't find that compelling argument. Perhaps one thing to keep in mind is, do you think the article could ever make it as an FA with that image? --C S (Talk) 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • This just devolves into an inclusionist vs. deletionist discussion. I'm neither. In this case, I simply feel the article is better with it than without. I'm a bit bothered as well that it appears the image was removed without significant discussion, put up for deletion, deleted, put up at DRV, and when undeleted somehow the default state seems to be to not have the animated version. Hmm. --Durin 17:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, to a degree, I can understand your annoyance, but I would say it stems from the fact that you are unaware of the ongoing discussion history. From my viewpoint, this animated gif was there a long time, some people argued against it..it even got to the point where an overwhelming majority (more than 2/3) were against having the animation. Somehow the people in the majority were reticent (or well-behaved, depending on your viewpoint) to remove the animation and tried to make their case on the talk page. Eventually someone reading the page decides to remove the animation, upon which someone makes a fuss saying there is no consensus and reverts. Rather than re-reverting, people against the animation yet again try and make their case on the talk page. As the majority starts becoming smaller (but still undeniably one), coincidentally somebody tries to get the image deleted with ensuing antics (not that I was aware of it for a while), while removing it from the article. During these deletion-related events, a couple people, who have not participated in the talk page discussion, re-add the animation; the first, apparently not having even looked at the talk page, states that people against the animation should engage in discussion first. This finally annoys me enough that I revert. The second, you, somehow uses the existence of the overturning of a deletion review to justify ignoring the simple fact that there is a prolonged debate on the talk page, with one side in majority (diminishing though it may be). That I find unreasonable enough that I boldly revert. So you say you are bothered that the "default" is to not have the animation. Well, how does it make sense (at this point in time), to have the "default" be otherwise? --C S (Talk) 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • A quick search hasn't turned up this DRV you speak of; I'm still not the best at these things--could you post a link? My feeling is that comedy value, which seems to be the primary argument currently being used to defend the animation, is not a legitimate reason to make a change to Wikipedia, as it is not a comedy site. Chan-Ho addressed the explanatory power/"vigorous" argument, which was previously in vogue, earlier in the debate. I do think that when the majority of editors are against a particular edit, the burden of proof should fall to those advocating the edit to prove it makes sense. Also, I'd personally be OK with not even including the votes that are predicated on it being "too funny" to delete, or anything like that. If the majority of editors voted to vandalize the page, would we do that? Croctotheface 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the DRV link: [1] --C S (Talk) 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Dickenson

I added to Wikipedia:Requested articles the "Bruce Dickinson (producer)" article which is a red link right now. It may be "Dickenson" and it's not the Bruce Dickinson that led Iron Maiden. (After the producer article exists, the latter article needs a disambig to the producer article at the top, and then links to "Bruce Dickinson" should be reviewed as suspect.) I would write something about the producer but have found zip about him. Tempshill 23:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no real producer named Bruce Dickinson. There is only a guy who used to be a product manager at Columbia Records who is not a producer in the conventional sense, but did put together a few compilation albums of previously recorded material. User:DanielLevitin 18:29, July 4, 2006.
User Leflyman deleted the text about how the character in the video appears to be modeled after real-life BOC producer Sandy Pearlman. He deleted the following text:
"Record industry insiders have been struck by the uncanny resemblance between Walken's character and BOC's real-life producer, Sandy Pearlman. It is reported that Pearlman talks, walks, and dresses just as Christopher Walken's character does in the skit. A compact disc of BOC's greatest hits, "On Flame with Rock and Roll" carries the credit "Produced by Bruce Dickinson," but this is in fact a mischaracterization of his role. Dickinson (not to be confused with the lead singer for Iron Maiden of the same name) was a mid-level manager at Columbia Records in the 1990s who supervised the repackaging of the CD release, but never worked with BOC in the studio. Insiders believe that the writers for SNL probably saw this credit on the compact disc, and thus used the name Bruce Dickinson in the sketch, not realizing that the producer of the actual session was Pearlman. Pearlman and the band have both stated that the incident portrayed in the sketch is entirely fictional, the product of the creative minds of the SNL writers."
I was a producer working at Columbia/C.B.S. in the 80s and 90s, and I know Pearlman. I've watched the Cowbell sketch with people who know Pearlman, such as Howie Klein, Jeffrey Kimball, and several recording artists and producers, and they wereall struck by the resemblance between the real-life Pearlman and the portrayal by Walken. It seems to me that this paragraph is worth leaving in, and I would be willing to be cited as a source who can confirm. User:DanielLevitin, 18:34, July 4, 2006
  • Actually, no, I did not delete the text; I placed a citation request above it. (Please look again) Unfortunately, while your personal experience may be valid, it isn't usable as a citable, verifiable source on Wikipedia. (Articles here can not be "original sources" for information). If you can point to a print or other published media that can be referenced for the claim, then that can be added in. At this time, however, the theory that the character is modeled after "Sandy Pearlman" is purely speculative "Original Research". So far as I can find, Will Ferrell, who wrote the sketch has never cited Sandy Pearlman as an influence. (Nor has Walken when he's been asked about the role). In interviews with BOC members, the name has yet to come up. See, for example:
  • "Bruce Dickinson is a real guy, but he has nothing to do with 'Don't Fear (The Reaper).' He works for Sony and he's in charge of the production and remastering of all our old albums. He had nothing to do with the original 1976 'Don't Fear (The Reaper)." ("A COWBELL SALUTE TO BLUE ÖYSTER CULT", PauseandPlay.com interview with Eric Bloom)
  • "And while there really is a record producer named Bruce Dickinson, he had nothing to do with the recording of the song. (Dickinson did work on some of the group's later releases.)" ("Blue Oyster Cult, Playing Along With 'More Cowbell'", WashingtonPost.com)
  • "Bruce Dickinson is a producer at Columbia Records, but he had nothing to do with "(Don't Fear) the Reaper." He was just a kid back then. I played the cowbell on the original." ("Blue Oyster Cult member tells for whom 'more cowbell' toll," Sacramento Bee reprint)
Think this through: If the writers of this sketch actually modeled the mannerisms of Christopher Walken's character on Sandy Pearlman, then why would they make the mistake of confusing the two producers? The SNL cast has 5 days to write, block, and rehearse these sketches—I can't envision them tracking down Pearlman and doing a study of his mannerisms. It seems impractical for a 6-minute sketch. —Xanderer 13:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thus, if a useable source isn't forthcoming, the claim will need to be removed.--LeflymanTalk 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I knew/know Pearlman (from the 60s at Stony Brook) & yes there was a similarity in appearance & style, but for the performance to be "based on" Sandy, Walken would likely have had to meet him at one time. Actually when I first saw Walken in the 70s or so, I was struck by how much he looked like Pearlman - esp the sunglasses. Dickenson did the remastering. Pearlman was the original producer --JimWae 21:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a portrayal of the producer of the song. Sandy Pearlman is the actual producer so it is indeed a parody of him whether they tried to emulate his look and mannerism or not. It could be an actual impression of the man, it could be a coincidental real life similarity or there could be no similarity. We do know it is not meant to be an impersonation of the real life Bruce Dickinson. They just saw that name listed in the album credits and used it in the skit.
Sandy Pearlman acknowledges he was the one being portrayed by Christopher Walken.
http://www.breathingprotection.com/sandy_pearlman.htm
Parody requires imitation by definition. If there was no imitation, there was no parody. Pearlman's belief that the sketch is based on him may be notable and merit inclusion, but that doesn't make it true. Croctotheface 13:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The sketch is indeed parody. It includes an imitation of Pearlman's work but that does not have to include an imitation of his looks or personality by defintion.
The character of the producer is based on him, not the entire sketch.
The part about Walken matching Pearlman's looks, speech, mannerisms, etc. was removed from the article. We don't know if that is true at this time and even if it is true we still don't know if it was intentional or coincidence. But we do know he was the actual producer in the real life event this parodies.
(This is a lot of indentation!) I'm not opposed to including factual information in the article. You seem to acknowledge that the removed text was unverified, as "we don't know" if it's true. I don't see where you're getting the idea that the character of the producer is based on him. It seems as though you're saying that because Pearlman has the property "producer of 'Don't Fear the Reaper'" and a character with the same property is depicted in a comedy sketch, that sketh is parodying Pearlman. That is not the case; parody requires imitation. If the sketch does not actually involve imitating Pearlman, then it is not parodying him. All that said, I'm not really sure why we're debating the definition of parody. If you want the removed text in the article (which I am guessing is what you're after) then find reliable sources that supports the assertions in the text. Croctotheface 06:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(I will "un-indent" here to make the page easier to read.)
No, there's some misunderstanding here! I was the one who removed that text since no citation was found. You are right that there is no reliable source yet found that says Walken was acting just like Pearlman would in real life much less doing it on purpose.
(You would think Walken would know Pearlman's name if he knew him that well. But that could be called "original research" so I won't continue with that line of discussion.)
Since Sandy Pearlman describes it simply as a "parody" of himself that is the word being used now and is cited. There is no source found to contradict that so there's no reason to think it's not true. But there are varying degrees of parody so it could be a bit confusing using that word. The section may need to be cleaned up a bit.
"Because Pearlman was "producer of 'Don't Fear the Reaper'" and a character of "producer of 'Don't Fear the Reaper'" is depicted in this comedy sketch then that sketch is parodying Pearlman" is indeed what I am saying (and it seems so is the man himself). Parody may require imitation but the imitation in this case is simply imitation of "the producer of 'Don't Fear the Reaper'", who is Pearlman. That is was makes it a parody of him (in a roundabout way perhaps but still a valid definition). It's a parody of his work not his personality. It doesn't have to be an impersonation of him which is what some people are speculating.
Now if they intended to parody a particular real person as being the producer then it would not be a parody of Sandy Pearlman. (For example, if Christopher Walken played "himself" as the producer. That would be a parody of what it would be like if Walken had been the producer and would have nothing to do with the actual producer.) All sources indicate this was not the case and there was no intention to do an impersonation of the real person named "Bruce Dickinson". Since it seems to be just "the producer" then it can be truthfully called a parody of Pearlman since he was "the producer" of the song.
If Walken's character was simply called "the producer" there wouldn't even be a question. Using the name of a real person but not the person who was really the producer caused this confusion. But even the names of members of the band and their roles are mixed up in the sketch. And it seems nobody is paying much attention to the fact that one of the main jokes of the sketch is how this character of "Bruce Dickinson" is such a successful producer when really nobody knows who he is. ("coming from you, Bruce, that means a lot.") It could be considered a bit insulting when you look at it that way. Sandy Pearlman really is a successful producer in real life! He seems to take it all in fun though.
I've since reworded that section and removed the word "parody".

Visconti's 1972 film

A film that came out 28 years before the sketch seems a little out of place here.

yeah. removed. —Alxndr (t) 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cowbell player

I have a vague memory of watching the episode this is on, and I seem to remember that there is a cutaway showing that the SNL band was playing all the instrumental parts on this sketch, except for the cowbell, which I believe Will Ferrell himself plays. Can anyone verify this, and does it matter to anyone but me? Makemi 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC) If my memory still works, it was in fact being played live by Blue Oyster Cult. Either way, it doesn't really matter. - CorbinSimpson 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Not sure what you mean by "live by BOC". In the skit, the band was 'playing'. But BOC the real one) wasn't involved in the skit -- in fact many articles can be found that said they were pleasantly surprised to view the skit live (in their homes) and that was the first they'd heard of it. I would presume that either the SNL band played the remaining instruments, or that they used a recording of BOC. --Rehcsif 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Author of sketch

Who wrote this sketch? I think that ought to be an important aspect of the article for this. --2-18-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.213.33 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 February 2006.

My understanding is that most SNL sketches are written by the whole group of people who are in them. Most of the time credit cannot be given to any single person, but is given to the whole cast. Some specific characters can be credited, however. Makemi 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the GIF

It is copyrighted and owned by NBC and can not be rebroadcast here on wikipedia. Sorry to end the fun. EdRooney 21:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Fair use is claimed and fully explained on the image's page. User's edit is probably in response to the removal of several imagevios from Geno Petralli. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No Sir, I don't care about any page about a Gino Petrali. I saw that you have done a slendid job on wikipedia and I was trying to help out. I don't believe fair use applies to this image. I spoke to a lawyer at NBC's NYC offices and they said it needed to come down. EdRooney 14:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we can be pretty sure this is a troll given the user's history. --Saforrest 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Link

Why is there a link to a list of songs with cowbells? This is about a particular SNL sketch... too lazy to log in 24.5.125.232 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, for I am here to save the day and revert your edit! - CorbinSimpson 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd never take seriously someone too lazy too log in. I mean, I'm lazy, but ..... BabuBhatt 02:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott Van Pelt From ESPN

I know when he is doing baseball replays and somebody hits a homerun he says something about needing more cowbell. Anybody know what exactly he says? BIG Tuna 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link

I removed the following from "External links": http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2687249 iFilm version. Anyone have an updated address that works? - IstvanWolf 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure that the sketch was titled "Behind the Music..." etc?

I'm not convinced that the title of the sketch is the title of the fake Behind the Music show. Unless we have a copy of the script, or can cite a reliable source that gives the title, we can't really claim to know what the sketch is actually called. --croctotheface, 6 May 2006

  • Where does it say in the article that the sketch's title was "Behind the Music: Blue Oyster Cult"? I don't see that anywhere. -- Kicking222 14:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the reference a few days after I posted about it. Croctotheface 04:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • SNL Transcripts gives that title. Deltabeignet 05:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Although SNL Transcripts can be a fun read and decent resource, it's reputation for accuracy is hardly unblemished. I wouldn't trust them to know any more about the show than the average fan. Croctotheface 07:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just go here to view it: http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html The title is right there --JimWae 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I am convinced that "Behind the Music: Blue Oyster Cult" is the title of a fictional episode of _Behind the Music_ that is featured in the sketch. I do not see proof that it is also the title of the sketch. Croctotheface 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture.

I found that the picture is moving in the article. Can somebody fix the image? or Was piucture like that? I personally think that Picture that I've mentioned are not too much in Wikipedia articles. *~Daniel~* ☎ 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many references

I think the references section needs to be pared down a bit (or possibly a lot). Some of the references are just not notable enough for Wikipedia. The sketch is popular, and lots of people will make some reference to it--that doesn't mean they all should be on Wikipedia. Also, some of the section reads like an ad, especially for the webcomic. Croctotheface 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Agreed, but I've taken the liberty of adding the reference in the 2002 NBA Playoffs, which seems a bit more of a pop-culture milestone than the Tampa Bay Devil Rays' usage. --Bdure 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC) yeah, the WOW and the other online video game reference should be deleted. this seems unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.132.250 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blue Oyster Cult response

In interviews the band has indicated they thought the sketch was funny, and have even had a roadie play a cowbell during performances now. (from the [Blue Oyster Cult FAQ] )

iTunes Store Playlist

I just added the fact that the iTunes Store has a playlist called "More Cowbell!", along with more details, in the reference section. I was surprised this wasn't in there already, considering how many people use the store. Nauticashades 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More animated cowbell poll

Image:Cowbell2.gif

The animated gif on the right has been restored per a decision at WP:DRV. It is now up to the editors to decide whether it is a better choice for the article (and whether it is proper fair use to include it). I'm just posting the standard poll format below and will abstain from voting. ~ trialsanderrors 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Result: Consensus to remove. Since the image is not used elsewhere, I tagged it as orphaned fair use. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey: Should the animated gif be used for the article?

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose as wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Croctotheface 01:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Croctotheface. Peter G Werner 06:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's annoying. Serpent-A 06:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I wouldn't say it was unencyclopedic, but it is just to distracting to be on there. Nauticashades 07:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I don't know that it's all that useful an illustration, but I definitely oppose the idea that this is "wholly inappropriate" for an encyclopaedic. Wiki is not paper. We have audio clips, rendered math, HTML links. Eventually, when free technology for this becomes widespread, we will have video clips. The line between those and an animated jpg seems quite fuzzy. --Saforrest 02:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The question isn't whether one dislikes animated gifs or not, but whether this particular one adds anything to the article. I say no (see above section "animated gif" for plenty of explanation), and not only that, people find it distracting. --C S (Talk) 02:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll have to agree with Croctotheface below. I don't have a problem with animated GIFs in Wikipedia in general, if it's important to illustrate a hard-to-describe concept (like harmonics on a guitar string). But this adds nothing but distraction. Link to it instead (if you really need to).'bitchen' ric 12:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The fair use justification is "screenshot" - but this is not a screenshot, it's a derivitive work assembled from screenshots and therefore is copyright of the (unidentified) creator. Several similar animated gifs sourced from YTMND and YouTube have been deleted for exactly that reason. Unless El_C is or can identify the creator and we can get a free version released, it's a copyvio and this dicussion is moot. If the copyvio can be fixed, it is still a weak oppose from me. I think the cowbell sketch is priceless, but animated gifs are soooo last century. Guy 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The animated .gif is a cropped portion of the video, an insubstantial portion of the greater work that is not radically altered from the original. A fair use justification similar to the boilerplate screenshot rationale would suffice. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Only if illustrating the source of the derivitive work itself, I believe. Guy 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, every time I see it I have to play Don't Fear the Reaper and it's getting kind of old :-) Guy 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a hell of a lot funnier than the static image precisely because of its irritating nature. Positing pompous accusations of un-encyclopedic-ality is foolish when you consider that no self-respecting encyclopedia would ever even have an article about an SNL skit. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't add anything, distracts. Skittle 15:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • As far as this setting some kind of dangerous precedent against using video clips, the test would be, as Chan-Ho says, whether the video adds anything to the article. I'm not saying that any moving image is wholly inappropriate by definition, but this one is. The reason people want to include it is for comedy value. Not having these kinds of animations for amusement and no other reason is what makes Wikipedia different from, say, YTMND. Croctotheface 04:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't we put in the animated GIF with a button to play it and stop it? Sure, it's annoying but it's mainly annoying because it keeps going and going. Let's say it played once automatically, and then stopped, but then you could hit play and it would start again. Sbwoodside 21:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if that's possible, but it sounds like a good idea. NauticaShades(talk) 09:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It would have to be in a different format. Not sure if we're allowing Quicktime clips but if it's technically doable there shouldn't be a copyright problem as long as it's short enough. ~ trialsanderrors 07:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This strikes me as a lot of rigamarole to justify putting something into the article that most editors (so far) believe doesn't add any value. Croctotheface 17:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • If someone is willing to do it I don't have any problems with it. It seems to satisfy both sides, plus a Quicktime might actually be better quality than the herky-jerky gif, which is essentially just four frames looped indefinitely. ~ trialsanderrors 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to the Actual Sketch

Are we allowed (copyright-wise), to link to a video of the sketch online in the External links section? If we are, I definitely think we should add such a link. NauticaShades(talk) 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would be a copyright violation. If it's any consolation, I doubt that anyone who wants to watch the sketch would really have trouble finding it. Croctotheface 10:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Linking to the actual video would not be a copyright violation. I'm surprised there isn't a link now. I'll try to find one and post it. -Taco325i 06:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Might I ask on what grounds you're making this judgment? If any given site doesn't have rights to the skit, then it's a copyright violation for them to host it, and as such, we can't link to it from here. The -only- way we could link to it is if it was hosted on an official SNL owned site, because then they have the rights to show the video. No one else does, it's not old enough to be in the public domain yet. The screen caps we use here are okay as they are the minimum necessary to illustrate the topic. Linking to the entire contents of the skit however, is something we just aren't legally allowed to do, outside of the hypotheritcal situation I mentioned earlier in this paragraph.
If I might make a comparison, it'd be like linking to the entire text of a recent novel, or the issue of citing the entire lyrics to a song on here, we can't do either of those because copyright law protects those things, and similarly they protect the SNL skit. As much as we might like to link to it.. we just can't. Errick 11:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You are rright, Errick, I spoke too soon. It's not unlawful but it is against Wikipedia policy. I can't believe the NBC site has clips like the Continental but not cowbell. Maybe we should write an angry letter saying, you know... -Taco325i 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

More Cowbell

Got this peer review by a bot. Feel free to strike out things when you have fixed them. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[1]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [3]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NauticaShades(talk) 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Wow, great job utterly killing an already weak joke, you absurd nerds. A one-off SNL sketch does not need an eight hundred page wiki article indexing every time any idiot has remembered it. 24.239.35.204 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC) And removing the actual animated gif of the joke, in order that we may instead link to a video of it. Gzuckier 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My changes to the References section

As I was browsing articles on my watchlist, I saw that there was a comments in the peer review for this article that mentioned eliminating references and potentially reworking the section into prose. I first did one, then the other. The section could probably stand to have a few more specifics (but probably not many more, it needs to read like a coherent paragraph) but in general I think that removing every single college or minor league team that ever used the sketch or the song to rally the crowd is an improvement. Let's try to keep the section from bloating up too much again. Croctotheface 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • As a foreigner who's never heard of the sketch before reading this wikipedia article, I found the references section a very interesting read. It illustrated the impact of the sketch on pop culture quite nicely. Maybe we could put it in a separate article instead of deleting it completely? Keth 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be opposed to creating a separate article, but I'm not sure it's really notable enough. I have two issues with the way the section used to be. First, there was no clear standard for what could be included, so it could bloat with many non-notable references and spam. I can't imagine what kind of standards there would be, so consequently this will always be an issue. Second, this is an encyclopedia article, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In my opinion, a huge, bloated section on references to a comedy sketch is likely not worthy of an encyclopedia. Croctotheface 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You're probably right about that. I put the list on another website now and I'll just post the URL in the external links section. Keth 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual name of the sketch?

Does anyone know what the actual name of the sketch is? Is it actually "More Cowbell" or does it have a different name? If "more cowbell" is just a line from it and not the title of the sketch, the correct article title should be "More cowbell". Axem Titanium 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC) .....i sure thought it was the name of the skit. Skiendog 08:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)skiendog

Added a comment regarding web video archive links

I hope it's okay for me to do that, but I stuck a commented line in the External Links section, saying we can't put links to Google Video or YouTube copies of the skit. I know that's been discussed before. If that's not appropriate, someone can of course remove it. Errick 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It’s okay for you to do that. Think Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works is relevant here. It’s okay to link to copyrighted work, but not okay to link “knowingly and intentionally” to a site that violates copyright. I’m not sure if Google violates copyright (Google Video FAQ on copyright), and I’m probably not the only one. My interpretation is: if I link to a Google video, I don’t do it “knowingly and intentionally” to a site that violates copyright, they say they are actively preventing copyright infringements. So I’m left with making sure that the link complies with WP:EL. --Van helsing 10:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An irrelevant page

MadTV's classic character Ms. Swan has tons of catchphrases, such as "I teh yuh," "he look like a man," "monkey in the bush," etc. and there isn't a page on those phrases. And now Bold text more cowbell gets a whole page to its self. This page should be up for deletion

You could nominate it for deletion. I think the topic is unquestionably notable, though. Croctotheface 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cowbell2.jpg

Image:Cowbell2.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 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 06:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)