Talk:? and the Mysterians

Bugs and redirects

Weirdness--I just made a brand-new article for two kinda obscure 60s bands. First, I did the 13th Floor Elevators and everything worked fine except for interminable slowness. Then, I did ? & the Mysterians and once again, everything worked fine except for slowness. Then, since I knew I had seen a few references to the Mysterians that didn't show up on "what links here", I did a search and found two alternate methods of writing the band's name, and I redirected them. Going to recent changes, I saw the two redirects but not ? & the Mysterians. 13th Floor Elevators was listed, and then the redirects a few minutes later but not the article itself (which does exist; the redirects work perfectly). Did anybody see the actual article appear on recent changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2003 (UTC) (Submission comment: from village pump archive)

>I tried to create a page to redirect here from "? and the mysterians" (lower case m), but I was unsuccessful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.42.59 (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009‎ (UTC)

First "Punk band" ?

An anonymous contributor just wrote in this article that ? and the Mysterians were written up by Dave Marsh in the May 1971 Creem Magazine as being "the first punk band". It is not totally clear that this is the case. The anonymous addition was "? & the Mysterians was also the first band to be described as punk rock." It has apparently been in the Punk rock article for some time. I don't have access to the original Creem magazine article, unfortunately, to check Marsh's words. I am just assuming the folks over at the Punk rock article checked this out. It would not nescessarily be out of the question for it to be the case. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong links!

This article wrongly links rocker Robert Martinez to Bob Martinez, first latin governor of Florida.

The link to Frank Rodriguez is circular and leads back to this page!

togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia, 2007-01-30

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.140.40 (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2007‎ (UTC)

Hit count

The article describes "96 Tears" as the band's "first and only hit" – and then goes on to say that their next two singles "were also hits, but nowhere near as popular as "96 Tears"". Either "96 Tears" needs to be described as their "first and only major hit" or the other two singles shouldn't be called hits. I'll leave it to someone who knows more about the band than I do to decide which. Russ London 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact verification

I have just edited this page with the direct assistance of Question Mark today June 25 07. I have tried to keep as much of the original copy as I can but there is a lot of misinformation going about this group which has made it on to this page and a lot of missing information. I hope this will clear up some of this. Question Mark has a sour relationship with Jon Weiss but to be fair historically one must include his contributions and his place in the history of the band. It certainly doesnt seem fair to exclude him. I myself(Gary Fury) am part of it's history in a different way since I am not a "Mysterian" but I have performed with Question Mark in versions of the group over the last 7 years in some major shows in NYC and elsewhere and so I am including myself as well. When I have time I will be communicationg further with Q and The Mysterians to give an even more detailed history of the original group nad the details behind 96 Tears. If there is anyone out there who can do a better job of editing than myself and has some proofreading skills and good grammer please dive in and clean this thing up. Anyway Ciao for now Wikipeople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROCKNROLLFURY (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And the proof of this is where? You didn't cite any kind of sources. Anthony Rupert 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gary

I edit here all the time, follow the rules, add citations when they are missing or outlawed. Thank you and Rudy/QM for breaking the rules this one time and sharing with us. Anthony, proving his statement is why this is totally against the rules, you are right. I grew up in New Jersey, and late at night, I used to tune my AM radio in to CKLW, Windsor, Ontario to hear the Motor City sound. I went out and bought "96 Tears" (45), and soon wore it out, along with "Paint It Black" and "You Keep Me Hangin' On." Thanks so much for your unforgettable music. Question Mark, thanks for making me laugh, though your name was on that first record I bought. I hope you are still getting checks in the mail for your songwriting career. Wish I could help with your editing but I can't touch it, I work for/with Anthony. Nothing personal. Tillywilly17 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

---

(gary fury)Young Mister Rupert please follow proper etiquette and create your own talk segment instead of inserting your comment into mine in front of my signature. This is a somewhat rude and antagonistic approach to challenging the article. To respond to your comment, the information here cannot for the most part be cited as being pulled from literary sources since there simply isn't very much in the way of reliable published literary sources the key word being reliable, however we do have the living artist(s) to supply information directly which is the case here. A basic problem with wikipedia is that the policy for verification operates under the assumption that if material is published elsewhere it can be relied upon to be valid and this has led to misinformation being published. The original version of this article being a prime example. In fact this situation in which we have questionable information being presented on wikipedia inspired a parody article in the lampoon newspaper known as "The Onion". To bolster my assertion I cite the story that the song "96 Tears"was originally entilted "Too Many Teardrops" and Then "69 Tears" which was included in the first version of this article. It was published in a major literary work and therefore is considered to be a reliable source. The artist who wrote the song refutes the story so which version of the facts is to be considered valid? If one recognizes the fact that simply because information has been published does not make it accurate how far can one go to provide verification on subject matter like this which is not the kind of information found widely in history books? I think we need to have a recorded interview with ? posted online to have a direct reference to draw upon and I'll be working on that later this year. Also ?'s copy of the Creem magazine article was destroyed in the January fire and a copy of it needs to be obtained to substantiate the section of this installment which refers to it and makes the claim that ? is the artist for whom the term Punk Rock was coined. A potential benefit of wikipedia is that original content can potentially be created directly from the subjects of the article rather than culled from literary sources which can be inaccurate and subject to the interpretation of misinformed persons such as the aforementioned "69 Tears" story. In fact in the music section of wikipedia a vast majority of insertions regarding living artists contain newly created content provided by the artists and bands and or their publicists/labels themselves. I recognize the point you are trying to make based on the policies of wikipedia but I find in this case strict adherance to those policies will result in an inaccurate article. I recognize there is additional work to be done on this insertion but again when compared to many of the insertions regarding musical artists I consider this to be as substantial if not more substantial than many of those articles.

---

Gary Fury(user:rocknrollfury)7/5/2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROCKNROLLFURY (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gary, I hope you'll find that most people here are reasonable about the policies. (Although Anthony asked about your sources, he didn't undo your changes, either.) For example, I doubt anyone will object if you remove incorrect information from the article, even if that information comes from (incorrect) published sources. (If you do that, it would be a good idea to explain here on the talk page that the published source is wrong, and how you know.) Your suggest of doing a new interview with ? and posting it online is an excellent one, by the way. I hope you'll stick around and keep contributing to the article. SethTisue 14:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether it results in an "inaccurate article" is not the point. Adding information based on information garnered from the "living artist" is what WP refers to as original research and is not acceptable. Sources with editorial oversight are good sources and accepted here. There are other articles in the same situation which editors have decided not to change as there was no acceptable source offering the correct info. It's one of the things that is important for WP to be taken as a good source of information. It sucks that there may be no sources for the correct info, but it is detrimental to WP to use OR in articles also. Simply removing incorrect info until correct info with a reliable source is found is a better way to approach this issue. I know this is way after the fact. It's included as a reminder of policy here at WP. THX1136 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No list of members of the band

nowhere in the article (particularly needed in the infobox) does it give a list of members of the band. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 10:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Title not changed to 96 tears?

I recall Question Mark speaking with either Doug Podel, or Drew and Mike on 101.1 WRIF in Detroit. In this interview he claimed that it was originally 69 tears and that they had to change it. Was he just spinning a good tale, or is this really the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.112.56 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009‎ (UTC)

Why the ampersand?

I understand writing out "Question Mark" in the page title, but why did the "and" become "&"? I didn't want to just change it because other pages redirect here and I don't really know what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.42.59 (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009‎ (UTC)

I had a similar question come to mind when I read the article today. I was under the impression the official name of the group was "? and the Mysterians" - with the 'and' possibly being an ampersand. Other articles have dealt with this and it is usually decided that the published version of the name - what is on the record label or album cover - is the correct way to identify the artist in question. I'll see what I can find. THX1136 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long. From record labels and album covers the name appears in at least 3 formats: ? & the Mysterians, ? (Question Mark) & the Mysterians and Question Mark and the Mysterians. Questions answered (no pun intended). THX1136 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Michigan or Texas?

This article mentions PA-GO-GO records as being located in Michigan, however, there is a picture of the original 96 Tears 45rpm record on the bands official website and the label has an address of 408 Hazel, San Antonio, Texas. Was this just where this copy was pressed? Tonyhauser (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)TonyHauserTonyhauser (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Hollywood

Does anyone know why "The Real Jimmy Hollywood" insists on writing credit for "96 Tears"? It's on his web page, he refers to it regularly... is it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.172.37 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rudy Martinez

Does Rudy Martinez merit an entry for himself as ?107.221.229.121 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, all the credit goes to Question Mark. Rudy has been riding his coattails for years. Tillywilly17 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Recording date is March 13, 1966

In February 1966, the band auditioned for an independent record label, resulting in the demos "Are You For Real?" and "I'll Be Back", which were only released later and boasted for their very good sound quality in the 1999 album More Action.Afterwards, Larry Borjas and Robert Martinez received draft notices and opted to enlist to avoid being sent to Vietnam. The remaining band members continued while Rodriguez improvised an organ riff, and "?" introduced a composition he had been developing for a while in his head. Auditioning for a replacement drummer resulted in Eddie Serrato, originally trained in traditional Mexican music, joining the group. On March 13, 1966, Question Mark and the Mysterians recorded "96 Tears" along with "Midnight Hour" for the small Pa-Go-Go label with Fernando Aguilar, a bassist who was soon replaced by Frank Lugo. Tillywilly17 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Recording date is March 13, 1966?

(Link goes to song's talk page]]

References

I don't see any support for the date March 13. Your source doesn't mention it. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

1 History <<<link

1.1 Formation and "96 Tears"[edit source]

The band members were children of migrant farmers who settled in Michigan. The original trio, consisting of Larry Borjas (guitar), Robert Martinez (drums), and Bobby Balderrama (lead guitar), encountered one another and were motivated by surf rock bands and instrumentalists......

down in second paragraph

I was inquiring about source and further details Tillywilly17 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)