Talk:Renaissance (band)

In the Beginning

In 1978, a compilation of Prologue and Ashes are Burning was released on a two-disc record/one cassette tape, and titled "In the Beginning." Should this be added to compilations? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

Any muso's fancy casting an NPOV eye over this article??? quercus robur 23:57 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Isn't this article better titled Renaissance (band)? Wshun

Yup - that's what seems to be done with other articles (Can (band) and Faust (band), for example). I'll move it. --Camembert 00:24 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's a lot of POV stuff in this article. Needs a fairly heavy edit to remove bias. -- Lee M (Renaissance fan)

Re the original band: their first album was on Island in UK, not Elektra, and the second was only released in Germany. Re the second line-up, the original guitarist was Mick Parsons who died in a car crash the day before Prologue was recorded. Note also that very many musicians passed through in the early days. Incidentally, Annie Haslam has said that she never regarded Renaissance as a rock band. The (almost) original line-up reformed as Illusion, and released two albums. Sbz5809 12:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"However, Renaissance's live performances were normally faithful reproductions of the studio recordings, and this was not taken well by fans.", that's quite an odd statement. Where is the proof that this hasn't been taken well by fans? - since this is typical behaviour for a progressive rock band at the time and is something that can hardly be an obvious reason for why their concerts were apparently not 'taken well by fans.'

Agreed, and I took it upon myself to remove that assertion. That statement is the sole reason I checked this discussion, because it stuck out like a sore thumb as I was reading the article, and I figured someone else must have commented on it. The unsourced statement looks quite unprovable, since it's not clear how 'not taken well by fans' can be established as a fact. How many fans didn't approve? 10%? 50%? 75.8574%? It's just someone's opinion, and strays away from a Neutral Point Of View. - 4.246.129.76 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

classical tunes

I want to add two items to List of popular songs based on classical music: "Cold Is Being" (Adagio for Strings, by Albinoni) and "Going Home" (part of Symphony from the New World, by Dvořák) — but I don't know which album(s) they're on, and thus their dates. (One of them may be on Annie in Wonderland.) Anybody? —Tamfang 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Cold Is Being" is on "Turn of the Cards", and Going Home, according to this, is on Annie Haslam's solo album "Annie in Wonderland". --Yms 08:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks; done it. —Tamfang 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The opening of "Running Hard" on "Turn of the Cards" is Jehan Alain's "Litanies," a fairly well-known pipe organ piece.

Fair use rationale for Image:Renren123.jpg

Image:Renren123.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Betty Thatcher influence

The main article would be improved if there were a word or two on the band's relationship with Betty Thatcher, and how they got her to write the lyrics to some of their songs.198.177.27.22 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That aspect is now covered on Betty's own wiki article RGCorris (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tales of 1001 Nights

I question the release dates -- are they the CD release dates? I have cassette versions of these albums; volume 1 is dated 1975 and volume 2 is dated 1979. --AFbrat1972-MN (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Lights has volume 1 covering the years 1974-76 and volume 2 covering the years 1976-79; original releases of both, on CD and cassette in 1990. Perhaps the date on your cassette refers to the original recording date rather than the compilation release date ? RGCorris (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance on the Mike Douglas Show

I'm reasonably certain that I first saw Renaissance on the Mike Douglas show perform "Can You Hear Me" in promotion of Novella. That was my introduction to the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.15.140 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a tip, wikipedia isn't a forum. But thanks for sharing. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Paper Lads"???

Kids' TV show, used to be on (many years back) when I'd get home from school. Set in Tyneside. It even has its own Wikipedia page, which states: "The signature tune of the series, "Back Home Once Again", was performed by progressive folk rock band Renaissance, and it appears (re-recorded) as a full-length song on their 1978 album A Song For All Seasons." Doesn't this merit a mention here? To many (not of the prog-rock persuasion) this may be what the band is best known for. Johncurrandavis (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Johncurrandavis (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Dunford Link

The link on Michael Dunford points to a football administrator! There does not seem to be an entry for Dunford the musician. Seftelcm (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Dunford, R.I.P.

Michael Dunford has died [1], as some recent edits have noted.

I understand why some editors want to remove Dunford from the band's line-up, but I think that this should not be done. So far, there has been no announcement from the band as to whether they will continue to play together. So the recent edits, although well-intentioned, have created a new hypothetical band:

2012 - present

• Annie Haslam – lead vocals
• David J. Keyes – bass
• Rave Tesar – keyboards
• Frank Pagano - drums, percussion
• Jason Hart - keyboards

In other words, the current Renaissance article asserts that there exists a band called "Renaissance" whose lineup is Haslam-Keyes-Tesar-Pagano-Hart. But no such band has ever existed. In fact, if someone actually believed what was said on this page, they would conclude that "from 2012 to the present day", there was a band named Renaissance which had no guitar player. That's simply not true.

That is why I have removed the hypothetical "2012 to present" band lineup.

If the band announces that they will continue touring, they will surely announce their new lineup. I will bet a lot of money that the new lineup will include a guitarist. Therefore, even if the band does continue, there is not, and never will be, a Renaissance whose members are Haslam-Keyes-Tesar-Pagano-Hart.

On the other hand, if they announce that they will not continue as a band, then Dunford will be listed as a "member" of the band on this page, just as John Lennon is listed as a "member" of the Beatles (contrast to Pete Best, who is listed as a "former member" of the Beatles. But until we hear any notice, we should note Dunford's passing :-( but we can't invent new futures for this band without evidence. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree RGCorris (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Then let's replace "present", wherever the word appears, with "2012" (or whenever they last played). —Tamfang (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed the "present" that applied to Dunford to 2012. With the others, we are in a grey area. Bands routinely go through a brief hiatus when members change: for example, the Who's drummer Keith Moon died in September 1978; in early 1979 the Who invited Kenney Jones to join as drummer, and they played their first concert with Jones in May 1979. Wikipedia -- following the universal practice of music journalists -- do not claim there was a three-piece Who between 9/78 and 5/79, but neither do they claim that the band was broken up during that period. It's not totally logical but it's consistent with standard practice. But if Wikipedia had existed in December 1978 there would have been no good way to document the band's current status.

That's where Renaissance is at now. If Annie Haslam announces in a couple months that Renaissance won't tour or record for the foreseeable future, then we can list the band as having broken up retroactively to the date of Dunford's death. If a new guitarist is added, then we can state that Dunford was guitarist through 2012, and the new person became guitarist in 2013, but the band as such was active 2009 to 2013 or later. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Annie Haslam, on her Facebook page, just posted the following (emphasis added): "Seasons Greetings from 'Renaissance'.... In the midst of losing our 'guiding light' Michael Dunford this past month we are all reminded of how special the gift of life and friendship is to us in the human family. As our friends and fans we call upon you to keep the memory of the music alive in your hearts, as we in the band shall continue to bring it to the world. We hope to see you all in the new year.... Love Annie, Rave, Dave, Jason and Frank." So this is a clear statement that Annie intends the band to continue, and has listed the five remaining members of the last line-up. Obviously this won't be the actual touring lineup, since they will need a guitarist, but it should suffice to update this page. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Dedicated page for "Michael Dunford (musician)"

I strongly feel there should be a dedicated wiki page for Michael Dunford, as he was the band's principal songwriter. He was exceptionally gifted and composed and arranged long, intricate, sophisticated, instrumental passages for the band. Would someone like to create a dedicated page for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthspeak (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The relevant notability guidelines state that individual band members should be "redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Dunford was a member of The Nashville Teens, Renaissance, and and Michael Dunford's Renaissance — the last of which redirects to a subsection of the Renaissance article, and rightly so. (He was also in "The Plebes" and "The Pentad", but these bands were too minor to count.) He doesn't seem to have released any solo albums. Biographical information here: [2] [3] [4]. But it would be good to have a print source as well; there is no biographical info on him in Macan's Rocking the Classics. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Ottawa Bluesfest image

The image which has been in the Infobox for some years has been removed from the article at the request of the band because of issues with its quality. Please do not revert this edit. The image which is currently displayed there is temporary, and could be changed quite soon. Progress reports will be posted here, when necessary. Other editors ideas are most welcome. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding an image of Renaissance that I can legally upload. Any wikipedian who wishes to provide an image for the Infobox at the top of the article can reply at this talk page, or contact me, or load the image themselves. Please be aware that such an image might only be used in that position temporarily depending on quality, suitability, and whether a better image becomes available at a later stage. Even so, a temporary image would be greatly valued because I don't want the 1979 image to remain there any longer than necessary. Even though there have been changes since my original post, live concert images (historical & current) are still sought. In particular, a quality image of the band at the upcoming Fall Tour would be greatly appreciated, so get clicking! Attributes I am looking for:

• image of Renaissance in concert
• night-time image preferred
• all members of the band visible is preferred
• sharp image, of course, is preferred
• professional or non-professional photographer is not relevant, quality is

Successful image(s) will need to make their image public domain or license the image in the usual way. If you email me, please only send a couple of images. Thankyou. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"essential" attribution?

Enlighten me, please.

Where is it clearly and unambiguously documented that it is essential to attribute ownership of the infobox image in the infobox? Clearly the file page at commons contains the attribution information which, to my mind, is in compliance with the words at WP:CREDITS and the words at Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.

If a requirement for attribution in the infobox exists, it isn't readily available to editors who might do as I did and remove the attribution. Such requirement, should they exist, must be obvious to any editor.

And one last tidbit: The license under which we all release our work on Wikipedia when we click Save page, appears to be the same license that applies to the infobox image.

Am I missing something?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing politeness! The sentence re "one last tidbit" was unnecessary, and caused offence. Let me introduce myself. I'm Caesar; I'm highly educated; I'm quite intelligent, and I don't need little gems like that! If you have something to say, say it, and leave it at that.

Another thing that you are missing is context. When I joined Wikipedia in November 2013, there was a photo taken from the audience by a well-meaning fan. The lead singer of Renaissance was extremely upset (justifiably) with the way she was portrayed in that image. Because I raised the subject of that photo, and my wish to find a better one, I copped a blast. Then I tried to find a replacement image on the internet. I enquired whether it was permissible to use certain photos at the help page, only to be insulted with "you're trying to rip off copyrighted content". I wasn't; I was only asking. Then the lead singer came up with the present image, and helped me contact the photographer. Along the way, I promised that credit would be given to the photographer. My meaning was that such credit would accompany the image on the article page, and the photographer would know that was what was meant. During this process I spent many hours reading, and re-reading the guidelines in order that I followed the correct procedure, and avoided contravening any guidelines. Apparently I was not completely successful.

You can see that I have what Americans call a "situation". I need to fulfill my personal promise to the other parties, and clearly I have a problem with the guidelines.

Perhaps the following info, and suggestions might provide the way forward. The current image is the 2012 line-up of the band, and the intention is, at some stage, to replace it with an image of the current line-up, preferably in a live setting. Renaissance begin their Fall Tour in less than two weeks, and I am hoping to obtain something usable from RBarnes or a non-professional photographer. Perhaps I could renegotiate the terms if the next image is from RBarnes.

Given your extensive knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia, could you suggest a way for me to make the requirement for attribution readily available to editors, since the matter is unclear to me? This is intended as an interim measure.

Finally, I will be working to resolve the issue with the inline citation that you tagged. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that what I wrote caused offence, it was not intended. But, it does say what I wanted to say; I wanted to point out that you and I relinquish our rights to whatever it is that we write at Wikipedia under the same license that applies to Mr Barnes's photograph. I am also confused: on the one hand you seem to be saying that I should carefully govern what I say, but then, on the other hand, you admonish me to say something if I have it to say. Let us leave all of that behind us.

I think I understand your position and the quagmire into which you believe yourself you are slowly, inexorably sinking. Clearly, for you, the solution is as you've stated, another image free and clear of the burdens of personal promises. What I don't know, but strongly suspect, is that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation aren't bound, can't be bound, by promises that you make as a private person. If that is the case, you cannot be obligated to keep a promise that was not yours to make. If Mr Barnes is not happy, is he not free to ask that Wikimedia remove the image from commons? I pay relatively little attention to such things, but I think that I recall seeing the occasional image deletion pop up in my watch list with an edit summary saying something to the effect that the image was deleted at the copyright owner's request.

I think that the credit provided on the image's file page meets the requirements of the license agreement. I also think that it meets your personal obligation to Mr Barnes given that here, you must to work within the consensus opinion as currently stated at WP:CREDITS.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have never been bound by my promise, and they aren't now, nor did I expect that they would be. It was my personal undertaking to the photographer to give credit to him, which I sincerely believed I could fulfill. You state: "If Mr Barnes is not happy, is he not free to ask that Wikimedia remove the image from commons?" I won't challenge it's veracity, however you seem very relaxed about that possibility. I find that relaxed attitude disturbing; deeply disturbing. In the hyperthetical case that he withdrew his support, that would imply that he was quite upset which involves a reputational loss to Wikipedia. Conceivably, he could get on social media and share his dissatisfaction with other professional photographers. So, despite Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation having no responsibility for my mistake, both could suffer from the backlash.

Can we look at this from another perspective? At present, I have been working on this article for six months, and made 104 edits. I didn't put in that amount of work to end up with an article which is outside the guidelines; quite the opposite. What we have is that one aspect of the article is an aberration with respect to the guidelines. That aberration is a technical breach in the sense that the general public would not notice that it was incorrect. Also, the guidelines state that such attribution is discouraged, not prohibited. If we clearly state that the current attribution to Mr Barnes is an aberration, and that the article must be brought into line with the guidelines in a timely manner, would that be satisfactory to you? In other words, could you give me six weeks to find a solution, please?

I leave it in your hands to decide a course of action which resolves the issue with the least damage to Wikipedia, and other stakeholders. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that Mr Barnes could do as you say, though I don't know how much damage to Wikipedia's reputation would be done were he to wage a social media war. As long as WMF respects the terms of the license, as long as WMF honors any request by him to remove his image from commons, then what is to war about? All of this is, of course, speculation and speculation can paralyze us into inaction.

Were you to give over the decision making power to me (something you ought not do, this is supposed to be a collaboration) I would do as I have done: delete the credit from the caption for the reasons I have already stated. So how about this:

1. wrap the credit in {{small}} and {{color}} templates to reduce its visual impact
2. add a hidden comment that refers to this conversation

The infobox |caption= parameter would look like this:

|caption=Renaissance, 2012. Clockwise from upper left: Jason Hart, David J. Keyes, Rave Tesar, Frank Pagano, Michael Dunford, and Annie Haslam. {{small|{{color|silver|Photo by RBarnesPhotography.com}}}}<!--see [[Talk:Renaissance_(band)#.22essential.22_attribution.3F]]-->

Six weeks from today is 22 November 2014. Revisit the topic then and in the mean time wonder where the other 27 watchers are and wonder what their opinions might be?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of editing your code into the article, as an act of good faith, and thereby accept your proposal without amendment. Extended negotiation would be a waste of time. As always, all Wikipedians should have their say if they think it is appropriate. The date 22 November 2014 is in my diary, but hopefully there won't be a topic to revisit at that time. Thankyou for your time. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, please note that this issue has been resolved ahead of time. The photographer (copyright holder) has been extremely understanding, and I have removed the credit from the infobox. I believe your decision to grant me time to put things in order has been vindicated. Please contact me if you notice any problems with my editing, because I have no desire to accumulate a backlog of issues. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

2015/6 Line-Up

Renaissance are currently (April 2015) touring the UK and Europe with the following six-piece line-up :

Annie Haslam – vocals Rave Tesar – keyboards Frank Pagano – drums Tom Brislin – keyboards Mark Lambert – guitar, backing vocals Leo Traversa – bass

So in what way are David Keyes, Jason Hart and Ryche Chlanda still "current members" of the band while Brislin, Lambert and Traversa are only "current touring musicians" ? RGCorris (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

RGCorris, thankyou for your intelligent question. The only reason to keep the "official" line-up as it is would be that if Renaissance record a new studio album, and in my opinion they should do that, they probably will revert to the official line-up. Taking them individually, David Keyes should not be removed because he was committed to this tour, but was forced to withdraw due to poor health. This is the second tour in a row that Jason Hart has absented himself, without an explanation that I can find. His primary musical vehicle, I and Thou, should be releasing their second album this year, and maybe he is too involved with that. With Ryche Chlanda, I have no definite knowledge. My only theory is that with Keyes out, the band needed someone to fill the second vocal role, which would involve mostly harmony vocal work, but also a voice good enough to sing solo for a line or two in duets with Haslam. Some of their repertoire wouldn't work without it, and it is likely that Chlanda's voice is not on that level. A lot of the above is speculation.

I know that you are very experienced, and I would value your thoughts on what you believe should be done. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Renaissance have just announced that the same line-up will be playing American dates in October 2015, so there is no sign of David Keyes returning. RGCorris (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Saw them last night (19th April 2016) with the line-up -

Annie Haslam – vocals

Rave Tesar – keyboards

Frank Pagano – drums

Mark Lambert – guitar, backing vocals

Leo Traversa – bass

And another keyboard player whose name I did not catch, but it is not Tom Brislin or Jason Hart - can anyone confirm his name ? RGCorris (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Haslam's five-octave vocal range

Many sources have been found which state that Annie Haslam possesses a five-octave vocal range, including Snider which is quoted in the body of the article as "crystal clear five-octave voice". Whether Haslam uses all of her vocal range with Renaissance is entirely irrelevant. Repeatedly changing the article without citing sources will eventually be marked as vandalism. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Critics

I have a big problem with aggressive music critics as a whole. I think if one really wants to add such appallingly harsh content to a Wikipedia article, it should be necessary to prove that it reflects the opinion of a sufficient base of listeners (IMHO just saying "some critics" as in the main article is not enough). The guy at Rolling Stone could basically have said the same about ELP or Jethro Tull, but I guess he wouldn't have dared. If he hates this kind of music, that is alright, I'd just advise him to concentrate on what he likes and knows about.
A clue might be that the guy had a problem with women at large, as appears in this example:

The Slits Cut (1979) Rating: 1 Star "...reveals no singing ability, a rudimentary handling of musical instruments and rather poor reggae-influenced songwriting. Yet this do-it-yourself incompetence is precisely the point, claim the group's admirers. Obviously, then, for hard-core Anglophilic ass kissers only." (Wayne King, 1983 RS Record Guide)

Source
More interesting and constructive critical material can be found e.g. at http://www.tranglos.com/marek/yes/tr_14.html or http://starling.rinet.ru/music/haslam.htm Alexandre Oberlin (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me that there are two main reviews/opinions, each one featured equally in a quoted block. One is negative and one is positive. Removing the negative review that you called harsh was unhelpful, because it left the article non-neutral as far as reviews. It certainly is not necessary to prove that it reflects the opinion of a sufficient base of listeners. huh? Wikipedia does not work like that. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Basically you are saying that any dude can show up and say e.g. that Leonard Bernstein was a mediocre composer and conductor, and you will value such statement as encyclopedia grade for Wikipedia and fight for it to stay online with an equal visibility as the chorus of praise. Are you really sure that Wikipedia is supposed to work that way? BTW did you take a look at the critics I linked to? They are not only positive, but at least have some rationale beyond raw personal disdain. I’m sure we’ll be able to agree on a small set of qualified and representative appreciations rather than censoring each other. Alexandre Oberlin (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)