Talk:The Holy Modal Rounders

Untitled comments

Isn't "(Do You Like) Boobs-A-Lot" one of their most famous songs? Shouldn't it be mentioned? - Nunh-huh 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah, you're thinking of the Fugs. --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah Nah, that was always Steve Weber's song -- which is how it got onto the Fugs album. It is also on "Good Taste Is Timeless" and "Steve Weber and the Holy Modal Rounders B.C." There's also a fun flash cartoon floating around.--DeHypnotist 21:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

the "hit" was the Rounders 45 which gat considerable airplay in LA, particularly throughh Dr. Demento.

Some of the dates seem to be a year or two off; those of you who were around at the time should feel free to correct these. Bradluen 11:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New (2004) CD: Bird Song: Live 1971

Released by Water, the SF-based reissue label. Extended liner notes by Stampfel which include the addition of Roger North (drums) and Teddy Deane (reeds) to the line-up. The notes are from 2004, recording date "sometime in 1971" at WLIR. My edits of the article follow from the liner notes. R. H. Ellis (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Oregon Days

gee

The Rounders' Folk Background

One thing that oughta be mentioned in this article, somehow (haven't figured out how to work it in) is that the HMR actually did have a deep background in American traditional music, something that is evident upon listening to their material. At first hearing, it might seem as if they're just two crazy guys mocking hillbilly music or something, but they actually had an extensive knowledge of fiddle tunes and folk songs. (Just tended to butcher them in their performances.) I don't know anything more about this background, though (like where and how they picked up all their repertoire). Anyone else? --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Weber's Retirement

Steve Weber's retirement was announced on 12 Dec 2006 in the yahoo group have_moicy by the person releasing his most recent CD. --scruss (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm proposing the merge of Clamtones here because that page claims they are actually the same band. Zytsef (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge Clamtones/Rounders

They shared personnel at various times, but played quite different music depending on the frontman/frontmen. Clamtones maybe should have mention in HMR page, but I don't think merger is called for. --Dalriata (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On reading the Clamtones article again I agree. I'm taking out the templates as I write this. Gotta clean up the Clamtone's article to make it clearer, though. Zytsef (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian War Whoop release date

I've changed the date from 1966 to 1967 because that is the year as listed by ESP-disk. Does anyone know the month of release? 121.44.213.114 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Any reason we don't have a separate article on Peter Stampfel?

Stampfel left the Rounders decades ago, but has been out there playing ever since. Shouldn't he have his own article? Currently, his name redirects here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I have placed several recent photos in commons:category:Peter Stampfel. They might be useful here, and would certainly be appropriate in a separate article on Stampfel.- Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Holy Modal Rounders/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IsaacWikiEditor (talk · contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. It might take me a couple days to complete my first pass through the article, but I'm looking forward to reading and reviewing it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Great to hear! I should be pretty free in the coming days, so hopefully I will be able to promptly address any issues. IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking through some of your comments and wanted to address a few that are already there.

• For the list of musicians, I can add two sources (https://arthurmag.com/2006/03/25/arthur-magazine/, https://www.houstonpress.com/houston/Print?oid=6584309) that approximate the list that is currently there (and I would delete the names that aren't corroborated by the sources). These two sources were made to advertise screenings of the film. Are these okay? If not, would it be crazy to have a citation for the minute that each musician appears in the film?
• I know what you're saying about the image. Here's what the website says when you go to the home page: "The use of these photographs are now offered as a free resource to the Community to honor the spirit in which they were created. Photographer attribution is requested." I found the photo and asked on Commons: Village Pump/Copyright if it was okay to upload and the response was to upload it under Attribution Only. Here is the link to the conversation: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&direction=next&oldid=962100210#Is_photo_CC_Attribution_4.0?
• I would love for there to be more photos of the band from the 1960s and 1970s, but I don't know that there are any that have appropriate copyright. I looked a lot online but didn't find anything. I only learned about photo copyright because of my interest in getting photos on this page specifically, so I'm no expert and maybe missed something. I have also met and communicated with Stampfel about pictures and he didn't know of any. I also have met with and communicated with the co-director of their documentary, Paul Lovelace, and he free-licensed some stills from the documentary. So there are more pictures of the band on Commons, but they are from 2000-2003.

IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think either of those would be fine - PR generally isn't reliable, but for this kind of factual content I don't think there's a problem. The Variety review of the doc may also be helpful if it's not already a source.
• If that's standard on Commons, not a problem. My next piece of advice would have been to go ask them, but you've already done that!
• Fair enough, not much to be done if they're just not out there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  More updates based on your comments so far:

  • I have significantly reduced the page's reliance on AllMusic as a source for biographical information. The remaining AllMusic footnotes are for quotes, factual information which I believe is trivial, and album release/track-listing information (like citation 107). Let me know if you take issue with any of the remaining ones.
  • The page does rely heavily on citations for Perfect Sound Forever, but these articles are almost exclusively interviews with Rounders-related musicians or articles Stampfel wrote for the online magazine. Let me know if you still find this problematic.
  • I can swap out the Israel Young source for a secondary source. It was in the book Dylan Goes Electric! by Elijah Wald. I don't know why I went for the primary source instead of just citing the book. I'll change that citation tomorrow (I need to go to my local Barnes & Noble to find what page that part was on haha).
  • After my last comment, I found what I believe to be a better source for the list of musicians featured in the Bound to Lose doc: the website created to promote the documentary! If you don't think this is actually better, I can change it back to the articles you previously approved.

  IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  All sounds good, I'll check for the AllMusic on my next readthrough. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'll be continuing the review today and tomorrow and that should complete the first pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies for the delay, I may not be able to return to this until the weekend. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, no worries. IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  (I have edited some things based on your new comments. However, I will continue to refer to the page as it was before my most recent edits so that the citation numbers continue to line up with your comments.)

  • For "ungodly insane", since it's in a quote, do you just want me to put "[sic]" after it?
  • I see that you flagged some more AllMusic biography footnotes. Based on our previous discussion, I thought having only a few footnotes were okay if the facts weren't particularly make or break. Now, I get the feeling you just don't want "AllMusic Biography" to show up at all in the references. Am I correct? I continue to stand by my previous statement that the remaining AllMusic bio footnotes are for trivial facts, quotes, or album release information. I also really don't know of any better sources to attest to this information, especially for the release information since you'd be hard-pressed to find any mainstream media reviewing the albums and discussing them at length. 1(a) is there for the genre "psychedelic folk" in the artist infobox. 1(b) and 1(d) are quotes that fall under critical analysis about the band. 1(c) attests to the fact they had a "small and devoted following" and it sets up the rest of the paragraph to follow, so I don't really want to remove it. But if you want me to have a less descriptive opening sentence for that paragraph that goes uncited, I guess I can do that. 37(a) attests to the fact that the album Stampfel and Weber is just a repacking of the Rounders first two albums (citation 2 just attests to the fact the album exists, it doesn't mention what is in the album). I could remove this sentence, but I think it's useful to mention since the album is rightly in the "Discography" section of the article and since the album rightly doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. 37(b) similarly attests to what's in the album Fugs 4, Rounders Score. Christgau's review of the album doesn't state what it's contents are so explicitly on its own. 37(c) attests to the fact that the album was released in 1975 (I removed this one and replaced it with Christgau's website). 94 is there to attest to the Bottlecaps releasing three albums.
  • I replaced thefugs.com with a citation from Sanders's book. I know that's not a secondary source, but that's a small change I can make for now. I think that this fact might have been discussed in Unterberger's book Urban Spacemen (currently in the Bibliography). I don't have immediate access to it, but I could travel about forty minutes to look at the book at a library that I know has it. (Relevant side note: both Unterberger book are footnoted with a large page interval, because the two books have chapters on the Rounders and the Fugs. If you have an issue with this and would prefer a more specific page number for each footnote, let me know)
  • I'll look in the Shepard book True West (currently in Bibliography) to see if it mentions the fact that sam-shepard.com currently attests to. Maybe I can do that today or tomorrow. If not, I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm sure it'd be easy to find a source attesting to the play's opening in March 1970, but one that also mentions how the Rounders were involved would be harder.
  • I'll move the film into the Bibliography section later today.
  • Citation 87 is the liner notes for the album. Citation 88 (from the record label's website) has a brief summary of what the CD contains. Obviously, it would be better to have an independent source for this information, but I'm not sure there are any. Despite its recent release, there are almost no online reviews of the album. The two I know of are Christgau (whose reviews are rarely helpful for finding out factual information) and AllMusic (who you have flagged as not being particularly reliable).
  • I switched #100 back to the PR sources we talked about above.
  • The documentary was co-directed by Paul Lovelace and Sam Douglas. From the descriptions I remember seeing, they were film students (or freshly out of school) at the time and approached the band and asked if they could do a documentary about the Rounders. Lovelace had previously filmed a short doc on Christgau called Rock n Roll Animal. He's continued to be documentarian, releasing another on Bob Fass in 2012 called Radio Unnameable. Both the HMR doc and Rock n Roll Animal are currently on Youtube (perhaps questionably so) for you to watch first-hand. Is that enough information? I feel like I saw a quote somewhere from Stampfel and he said that he didn't put any demands on what the film would cover. Maybe I can try to track that down. I also have Paul Lovelace's email if you wanted to talk to him.

  IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I found what I needed in True West so I replaced the problematic sam-shepard.com source. IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! In general the Allmusic citations are ok, I was just noting them to check. I should have been more clear. I’ll look over the rest later. Thanks for your hard work on this! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to Isaac and any others who may have worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	ungodly isane - typo. As is my usual practice, I've made prose tweaks and trims myself to save us both time. If there are any you disagree with, just let me know.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	included appearances from fellow musicians Dave Van Ronk, Peter Tork, John Sebastian, Loudon Wainwright III, John Cohen, Ed Sanders, Tuli Kupferberg, Ira Kaplan and Sam Shepard. is uncited - presumably it can be sourced to one of the citations earlier in the sentence? Issue addressed, pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	AllMusic is of questionable reliability for biography per WP:ALLMUSIC. I recommend replacing with another source. Is Perfect Sound Forever a reliable source? Seems marginal. Deming, Mark - see comment on AllMusic above. Ruhlmann - another allmusic biography Thefugs.com is definitely non-independent. Is there a more independent, secondary source available for the facts cited there? #52 - documentary - if other sources also corroborate this fact no need to cite to a less verifiable documentary source. Can remove. Similar with #68, cited to YouTube - if there are other reliable sources which mention this performance, YouTube cites can be removed. Also applies to a few others. Is sam-shepard.com a reliable source? With how much the documentary is cited, seems like it could be moved to Bibliography and the cites changed to note specific timestamps. What's the distinction between cites 87 and 88 (Unholier Than Thou)? #94 - another allmusic biography. #100, boundtolose.com is a press release. Ok for the fact it's cited for, but if there's a more independent source for this info that would be preferred. Also - can you tell me a little more about the documentary? I just want to be certain it's reliable as the article so heavily relies on it. How independent was it from the band? Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The Israel Young source re: Bob Dylan strikes me as OR. This is working directly from a very primary source. It would be better if you had a secondary source talking about Dylan and Stampfel. Issue addressed, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig picks up a number of longer quotes, but nothing too egregious. Hold for manual spot-check. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC) Spot check of 6 sources turns up nothing problematic. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Removed some trivial details during prose review that would only be of interest to a dedicated fan, not a general reader. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Removed some too-flattering adjectives in the lead and a couple of sentences elsewhere to make sure it's neutral. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some recent expansions, which hopefully are complete, no edit wars or oustanding issues on talk. Provisional pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I might be misreading the tag, but why is File:The Holy Modal Rounders in 1968.png given as released under an attribution-only license? The source doesn't seem to be as clear about its license. Can we be sure it's actually Chuck Gould's personal website? Issue addressed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I know this might be tricky, but if there are any other available images of the group in the '60s or '70s, that would be a big improvement. Captions are generally fine, any minor tweaks can be handled in prose review. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.