Talk:Aja (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wayne Shorter[edit]

Hey this is cool. Someone should incorporate this. I have school tomorrow I can't. Myers, Marc (2011-07-15). "How Steely Dan Got Wayne Shorter". Jazz Wax. Burnedfaceless (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Cover[edit]

The article on Sayoko Yamaguchi says that she was the person pictured on the cover, photographed by Hideki Fujii. Should this be added? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings - thanks for that information and the links. If it can be referenced from a reliable source, then it can be added to this article. The fact that it is mentioned - and even highlighted - on Yamaguchi's article page isn't enough because it should also be referenced there. No one doubts the truth of it, it just has to be referenced according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fight Song?[edit]

I haven't missed a football game at the University of Alabama in over 15 years, and I've yet to hear Alabama play the song as a fight song. Anyone else want to stand with me to dispute this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.119.197 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've been to every Auburn-Alabama game since 1975, and I don't recall ever hearing "Deacon Blues" played even once. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Most sophisticated?[edit]

While I certainly won't dispute the excellence of this record or the claim that it is ambitious, I'm not so sure I'd go so far to say its their most sophisticated. Is this really the common critical opinion? Any thoughts? User:Havardj 22:30, 8 January 2006‎ UTC

How about a quote from the official Steely Dan web site?
From... steelydan.com/faq.html
(above quote appears to lack copyright)
Personally, I would tend to agree. Watch the interviews with Fagen and Becker in VH1's Classic Album series, and when you realize what went into this work, you'll agree, too. 71.164.41.126 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC) artglick

Phil Hartman (of SNL fame)[edit]

According to the Phil Hartman entry, he was the artist who did the cover art for this album. its worth mentioning in this entry if its true. Can someone confirm it and add it? --133.5.122.54 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He's not mentioned in the Aja liner notes. I'm removing the claim from the article, in absence of some verification. See also Archive 1#artwork photos. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed attribution of cover to Phil Hartman: Phil Hartman's brother John Hartman states in the Phil Hartman Facebook group "Yes he did 48 album covers. He however did not do the Steely Dan Ajia cover. He designed the Crosby Stills and Nash logo, but never did a cover for them he many Poco covers. Two America covers." July 23, 2017 [1]
Plook~enwiki (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
A Facebook page is not a reliable source. You'll have to find something better than that. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Then how about this: "As a graphic designer, Westen designed the album cover for Steely Dan's album, Aja." [2]
Plook~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Phil Hartman artwork". |archive-url= is malformed: save command (help)
  2. ^ Geoff_Westen

Six hundred dollars[edit]

The article mentions a $600 reward for the return of the multi-track master tapes of the title track. This seems oddly small. The source - which is a transcription of the liner notes - renders this as "$600.00". Can anyone with an original copy of the reissued CD confirm that this isn't a typo for $60,000? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not have a source for this info, but I would imagine (being familiar with Becker & Fagen's sense of humor) that the small amount was intentional and meant to be self-deprecating. Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011[edit]

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, preferably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

SACD?[edit]

The article says that the SACD version was canceled, but on eBay there are some Japaneese SACDs, released June 30, 2010. Is that correct? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Personnel[edit]

There are a lot of performers on this album. Does anyone know of a source out there (anywhere) of a track-by-track personnel listing for this album? Or, any Steely Dan album, for that matter? Dan Hewins (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The album's inner sleeve was the first SD album to list musicians on individual tracks, a practice the band followed with Gaucho. I think some of the CD box sets might have this information as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The source note under Personnel currently gives this: ""Steely Dan ‎– Aja". discogs., also the liner notes to the digitally remastered edition. And Broberg, Tomas. "Aja notes". Tribute To Steely Dan - Steely Dan Interzone. Archived from the original on 2009-05-05. Retrieved 2009-05-13. Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help). The last two references have no difference whatsoever in describing the personnel". However, the broberg source says this:
Saxes/Flutes: Jim Horn, Bill Perkins, Wayne Shorter, Pete Christlieb, Plas Johnson, Tom Scott, Jackie Kelso.
Brass: Chuck Findlay, Lou McCreary, Slyde Hyde.
So I'd assume the other musicians (Horn, Perkins, Johnson, Kelso, Findlay, McCreary and Hyde) might appear on any or all of the tracks that Scott, Shorter and Christlieb don't appear on. Or maybe they are on the those same tracks as well. Currently they are not mentioned at all. I think they should be. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Title pronunciation[edit]

Why do we have it as a soft j sound when Fagen is clearly using the hard j in the title track? Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In the documentary Classic Albums: Steely Dan - Aja (2000) Donald Fagen says the name comes from a Korean woman who married the brother of a high-school friend of his...Perhaps that's the way the woman pronounces her own name.Minusminority (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should this album be in Wikiproject Jazz?[edit]

I say no, but an editor reverted my removal of the Wikiproject Jazz template with the reason, "there are connections to jazz littered throughout the article, and to the topic" Now that's true. There are "connections". But "connections" to jazz doesn't make something identical to jazz, anymore than jazzercise has anything to do with jazz because it has the word "jazz" in it. Queen made an album called Jazz that had no jazz on it. I've been listening to Steely Dan (and reading about it) for a long time, longer than many of you have been alive. A couple weeks ago I finished reading the biography of Steely Dan by Brian Sweet. Walter Becker and Donald Fagen, the members of Steely Dan, always denied that they were a jazz band or that there were making jazz albums. They called themselves a rock band and campaigned to get themselves into the Rock and Roll of Fame, which happened. They are jazz fans. They did admit to sneaking jazz chords into their songs and of hiring jazz musicians for their albums. But this is different from recording a jazz album. Becker and Fagen did produce a jazz album, Apogee, for Warne Marsh and Pete Christlieb. I encourage people to listen to real jazz albums and compare them to Steely Dan. If you click my username, you'll see a list of jazz books. We do everyone a disservice if we continue to perpetuate the fraud that Steely Dan was a jazz band that made jazz albums, contrary to the repeated claims by Becker and Fagen. If we are not going to listen to the band members themselves, who are we listening to? Who knows better than they do? No one. The members of Wikiproject Jazz are free to decide what albums or musicians to include in Wikiproject Jazz. Let's restrict it to jazz. That's the whole point of the project.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Those are false equivalencies, and a puritanical outlook; this article demonstrates Aja has stronger connections to jazz than the Queen album or whatever jazzercise is.
  • We are here as editors first, not as researchers. Even your own research shows jazz is in the conversation of this topic, which makes it jazz-related, albeit not as much as a jazz record in the strictest sense, thus the "low" importance. As editors, we're responsible to have it reflected.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jazz#Tools: "Project banner … should be placed at or near the top of all talk pages on jazz-related articles". [My emphasis] Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. Puritanical? Easy on the personal attacks, okay? I'm not arguing for purity. Can you show me where I did? I am arguing for a proper understanding of jazz. I think you would be surprised at some of the albums and musicians that are in Wikiproject Jazz; many people would find it absurd to call some of them jazz. So I'm dealing with a broad definition already. I have had this argument many times on Wikipedia. When people say to me "You are narrow minded" what they really mean is "You should see things my way". But they never have good arguments about why. There are over 25,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. You may have missed the point of my comparisons. My point was something can contain the word jazz and in your words "connected" to it without being classified as a jazz. An album can be 80 percent rock and 20 percent jazz, but a music critic or journalist will create the term "jazz rock" and smash the two together. That doesn't make it jazz. You have not addressed the particulars of my points. Calling me names, aside from being against the rules, doesn't work as an argument. When you point the finger at someone else, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself. If you really believe this is a jazz album, contrary to what Becker and Fagen themselves have said, you don't know what jazz is. But you can learn.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
"jazz is in the conversation" Talking about jazz doesn't make something jazz. That's obvious.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. And your response is still puritanical. Your point is irrelevant, and you have not addressed my citation of the project-banner guideline. So I'll highlight it for you again: "Should be placed at or near the top of all talk pages on jazz-related articles". This is the only point that matters, unless you can find something in the guidelines that'll support your position. Dan56 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Is calling someone puritanical a compliment? Of course not. So it must be an insult, right? More to the point, please address the many points I have made. I have been patient and tolerant with you and I respectfully request the same courtesy. I have written a lot, but you have addressed almost none of it, and when you have addressed the subject you haven't done much better than "Nuh uh no it isn't". Come on, man. Don't drag this out. It's really very simple.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It is more of an observation than an insult or a compliment, unlike your reasoning, which insults my intelligence. Another observation: being patronizing, or projecting your insecurities about content discussion onto me, will not expedite your desired change. Your comments are way too long, complicated (rather than "simple"), and rely more on anecdotal or personal observation rather than specific Wikipedia guidelines or policy, which only I've cited. I'm sorry I am not responding the way you want me to, seeing it your way, or acquiescing to something I don't agree with. If you want your change to be enforced without my objection getting in the way, perhaps you should see a third opinion or an RfC. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstood what "jazz related" means. In Wikiproject Jazz "jazz related" refers not to genres of music but to articles about subjects other than people and albums. That's why there are articles about venues like Carnegie Hall, record labels such as Columbia and Sony, instruments like trombone and saxophone, festivals, bars, clubs, restaurants. That is what "jazz related" means. Other kinds of articles. My reasoning isn't an insult unless you are fundamentally against changing your mind, your habits, and learning something new. Show me where my reason is faulty. Don't just make an assertion or claim without backing it up. This isn't about winning. It's about accuracy. For example, why you do think it's OK to ignore what Becker and Fagen say about their own music? That is a very important point. If we are going to have a debate, you must address the points I made, otherwise it's one person gives a speech, then another gives a speech. That's not debate or discussion. That's a political campaign.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be rely on third-party sources, and Steely Dan is not a third-party? Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You're the only one giving speeches and personal essays, not having once cited a guideline or policy to back up your point. I don't see anything at WP:JAZZ that says what you are saying. Central point of using a talk page, from WP:TALK: "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." No one is obligated to spend energy and time engaging your points if they are baseless. Dan56 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Neither of us is obligated to be swayed by the other. It is normal for two editors in a content dispute to reach a stalemate. That is why dispute resolution alternatives like third opinion and RFC exist. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a policy against refusing to discuss. I have seen that many times on WP when people are unable to answer my questions. They either say nothing or they change the subject. That is not honest or civil debate. It strikes me as the height of arrogance to presume to know better than Becker and Fagen how to describe their music when they are the ones who wrote it, recorded it, and performed it. That's obvious. We do rely on primary sources sometimes, as when we use a musician's official site. We can use the official site for basic facts as long as we don't include promotional material. So dismissing the primary source in this case is against policy. Regardless, you will find few or no third-party sources that say "Steely Dan is a jazz band" or "Aja is a jazz album", which presumably is the argument you are making.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I have discussed. I am not dismissing any source. I am giving equal weight to third-party sources, which you do not want to do, which is against policy. (WP:INDEPENDENT: "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind." No one but you -- no policy or guideline -- advocates for restricting the use of the WP:JAZZ project banner on articles that cover recordings that in your mind are considered only jazz. Don't tell me I misunderstand the meaning of the word "related" when you seem to have a competence problem understanding you have to argue points with a basis in (and citation of) guidelines and policy that can be referred to. Dan56 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I have neither given a speech nor written an essay, so I reject those accusations. I consider the use of exaggeration and insults contrary to Wikipedia policy and inconsistent with mature, rational debate.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Speech. Dan56 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Go through WP:Third opinion or WP:RFC, and see what impartial editors think. Dan56 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Dan, did you perhaps mean purist above (and not puritanical)? I agree that this album can belong to the Wikipedia Project Jazz, and that it doesn't mean we're saying Aja is a jazz album. I also think this discussion got started on the wrong foot, and I hope it's due to writing a different word than intended. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It's too late to make nice; he has completely turned me off with his incessant, myopic bloviating, anal rigidity and condescending, hypocritical remarks from the get-go, all of which I suspect are products of his obsession with removing a superficial project banner (that seems incredibly precious to him) and have blinded him from comprehending the basics of guidelines and policy-based arguments; one simply should not argue in the manner he has; it is unreadable and off-putting. I'm glad I'm not alone anymore to be driven crazy by his behavior, but I have no more patience for him on this matter. Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Psychologists call this projection. You are lucky I haven't referred you to an administrator for all the times you have insulted me. I feel sorry for your inability to address this subject. Good luck, mate. You'll need it. If you are interested in learning about jazz, feel free to click on my username. Contrary to your assertion, I have not "turned you off". If you want to learn, I'm here to help.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
In the simplest, most obvious sense, Wikiproject Jazz is about jazz. Hence the name. I don't know how to make that clearer. EddieHugh made clear on the Wikiproject Jazz page that he doesn't want to favor one kind of jazz over another. That's why there are articles in the project about dixieland, swing, bebop, and avant-garde. I have worked on all of them. But the subject is still jazz, defined very very broadly. Is that determination subjective? To some degree, yes. But if lines were not drawn, decisions couldn't be made, and nothing would ever get accomplished. If you want to help, there is plenty to do. Complaining doesn't help. Always things your way doesn't help.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti, what is the downside of having a project's tag on an article that's related to that project's scope, if not fully in it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A response was given by an admin at [1] for anyone who wants to read it. The conclusion was "you are both at fault", which of course I disagree with (for the most part), though I respect the person who gave it. I'm dropping my participation in this article. Wikipedia is the loser here, not me.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem you complained about there was not so much this article as all the other ones where he objected to you removing the jazz project tags. Please consider my question above: what's the downside in leaving the tags? Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is yacht rock being removed from the infobox?[edit]

An IP removed it with no explanation, then - gasp - a veteran editor! Citing a claim it's an "outlier opinion", when there's an entire subsection in the article documenting its connection to yacht rock, including at least two reliable sources that explicitly define it as such. Funny thing - the outlier opinion is actually "jazz fusion", which is attributed to only one source! I know the country's upside down right now, but .... Thoughts? @Binksternet:, @JG66:, @Philly jawn: isento (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of this band or the album, but yes, there's a subsection here devoted to yacht rock so I can't see any reason in the genre not appearing. Like soft rock (and heavy metal, for that matter), the term can be used ironically – disparagingly – by critics, and it's good to be discerning in those instances, but that's not the case here.
Not so long ago I was somewhat taken aback, let's say, when hard rock was rejected at the Beatles' "Back in the U.S.S.R." – Talk:Back in the U.S.S.R.#Hard rock as genre. I suppose my take on that was informed by seeing how editors add any old genre to a music article, with a source, and how that seems to be the end of the matter, however self-contradictory the infobox list might end up being. Some commonsense on this issue is welcome (I'm relieved to see it applied, rather than Wikipedia just parroting misinformed rubbish), but again, I don't a problem with yacht rock being applied to Aja.
Quick aside: my beef is with the way psychedelic rock has superseded psychedelia as a description, when to many writers, and certainly with regard to historical accuracy, psychedelia was the term for this music in 1966–67. Of course it was psychedelic + rock, but it wasn't Psychedelic rock, at least not necessarily. We had a comprehensive article titled Psychedelic music that made GA in 2013; now it's pretty much been gutted as far as the '60s movement goes, and everything's gone to Psyche rock. Which is simply rewriting history. JG66 (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)