Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Great White Wonder

Infobox: album type

Not being overly familiar with infoboxes, I didn't understand the problem regarding User:Mike Selinker's original fix. Using the Longtype advanced command was a nice creative touch on his part to resolve the problem. However, "Studio Album" is still inappropriate since no song on the album was done in a studio, not even in a loose sense given the recording quality. "Compilation" isn't completely accurate either, though it's closer since the songs were chosen from two different sources. I'm also not sure of the protocol here, but one solution might be to request a new template. The Template:Infobox Album page isn't helpful on the subject, other than to state that if the type isn't known to leave the category blank. I'd like to see this worked out somehow and would appreciate feedback. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should pitch to WikiProject Albums the idea of creating a true "bootleg recording" parameter for Template:Infobox Album. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's warranted. Given GWW's notability, it should be treated like any other album, but for lack of a suitable category, it can't be. BTW, I'm changing the rating to Mid-Importance (regarding Dylan, it's Mid; regarding bootlegs, it's Top). Also, the article needs a lot of work, and there may not be enough here to warrant Start class, at least relative to many other Start class articles. Should this be changed to Stub? If so, please change it. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see the album rating is Stub. I'll just make them match. Allreet (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(note:edit conflict)Good call on raising its importance - I was actually considering doing that myself. It's definitely a significant part of Dylan's history - it drew from some of the most important sessions of the '60s, and started the real bootleg industry. So, would it be alright if I posted a proposal on WP Albums' talk page along the lines of this:

Suggestion

"Hello everyone. Allreet and I have been discussing the creation of a new "bootleg" parameter for the Template:Infobox Album. In case you didn't know, The Great White Wonder is an extremely important Bob Dylan bootleg from 1969, which drew from the sessions that would eventually be (partially) compiled in The Basement Tapes. We've been puzzling over whether it would fit under the compilation or studio parameter. It appears to defy both, as you will see in the below conversation I have quoted from TGWW's talk page:

Not being overly familiar with infoboxes, I didn't understand the problem regarding User:Mike Selinker's original fix. Using the Longtype advanced command was a nice creative touch on his part to resolve the problem. However, "Studio Album" is still inappropriate since no song on the album was done in a studio, not even in a loose sense given the recording quality. "Compilation" isn't completely accurate either, though it's closer since the songs were chosen from two different sources. I'm also not sure of the protocol here, but one solution might be to request a new template. The Template:Infobox Album page isn't helpful on the subject, other than to state that if the type isn't known to leave the category blank. I'd like to see this worked out somehow and would appreciate feedback. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should pitch to WikiProject Albums the idea of creating a true "bootleg recording" parameter for Template:Infobox Album. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that's warranted. Given GWW's notability, it should be treated like any other album, but for lack of a suitable category, it can't be [...] Allreet (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What do others think? Should a parameter be added?"

--End quote. Allreet, what do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion on this? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be a bootleg parameter in infoboxes. Even though there are very few pages on true bootlegs now, this could possibly spur others to write pages on bootleg albums. But it should be specific, such as a "Live Bootleg Album" infobox or a "Studio Bootleg Album" infobox, et cetera. BootleggerWill (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The name "Great White Wonder" is attributed in this article to the original sleeve being plain white. That claim is cited to some radio show. I think that's not a WP:RS.

It says in Pitchfork magazine: "[...]the title gleaned from its plain white jacket, decorated only with a titular stamp". Hmmm. Are they saying that the plain white jacket for which this bootleg is named, in fact had the album name stamped on it already? https://pitchfork.com/features/article/8937-this-little-conspiracy-the-great-white-wonder-and-the-dawn-of-the-album-leak/

Are there actually copies of the album with no titular stamp? I question this, because I was around when the album was hip, and I never saw a plain white copy. But supposedly only 2,000 were released with the plain white sleeve, so I guess sight of a plain white copy would have been unusual. But, but, but, the Pitchfork article actually says the original run was "1 to 2,000 copies". Well, nobody does a run of one copy; so how many copies were in this initial run? OK, so Pitchfork's credibility is brought into question.

Later in the Pitchfork article, the author refers to "dubs of dubs of dubs", being sold with plain white sleeves. So perhaps it is the case that the plain white sleeve was preceded by the name? Did the original pressing have a titular stamp, or not?

Here's my main point (and sorry for rambling). My understanding is that the name actually referred to the extraordinary blues talent of Bob Dylan, a white man singing black music (and hobo music as well, of course). Incidentally, the first time I heard "Open The Door Homer/Richard", I completely failed to grok that this was The Zim. I thought I was listening to black music; that song is reggae.

This site: http://www.bobsboots.com/boots/bt-g009.html suggests that the very first GWW might in fact have been a Swedish pressing, since it began to circulate around the same time as the original Californian pressing. I am British, and was exposed to GWW at around that time, in Britain. I knew no USAians at the time. It seems unlikely that the records I was seeing were from a run of only 2,000, minted in California.

This fellow at counterpunch speaks of a plain white gatefold, and plain white labels on the disks, no markings anywhere; he seems credible. He bought his copy in 1969, he says; in MD. That's the year I first came across the record. https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/15/call-me-zimmerman-bob-dylans-great-white-wonder/

The alleged creators of the record traded under the name "Trademark Of Quality". Friends of mine at the time circulated printed (well, OK, Gestetner'ed) lists of bootlegs, including GWW and LWW, and I definitely remember the TOQ label. The list was a single sheet of foolscap, and the trade was mail-order. One of the more prolific bootleggers in this list went by the name Jolly Roger. He was selling Grateful Dead concert mixing-desk recordings, which was a bit tacky (you could trade Dead concert tapes for the cost of a cassette).

A couple of years later, Richard Branson quit school and started a legit business selling discounted records by mail-order from a similar list.

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_White_Wonder