This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. National Football League This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Composers This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles

Re: deletion of Controversy. I beg to differ: His compositions are direct lifts from many film scores. The sources are not merely opinions of score enthusiasts—several in fact, with conclusions independently arrived—but factual note-by-note transpositions, with barely disguised alterations to rhythm and cadence to badly cloak its similarity to the original source. POV would involve conjecturing (probably correctly) that such an "homage" was intended to avoid paying royalties (substantial, although you would think the NFL could afford them) to the original composers from whose work Spence "borrows." —TashTish 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deletion of Controversy. Claims of Spence's "direct lifts from film scores" may be a common opinion - one I share, in fact - but they are still that: opinion, not fact. Even now you're making unsubstantiated claims. To wit: "several in fact, with conclusions independently arrived"? (Please give links to these people and where they've said and/or written such opinions.) "but factual note-by-note transpositions" with barely disguised alterations to rhythm and cadence to badly (again, opinion) cloak its similarity to the original source. (Please list the musicologists who have made such claims. If you are a musicologist yourself, please explain these similarities.) You even admit your own bias when you write this: "POV would involve conjecturing (probably correctly)" Conjecture is precisely what you're written; that you say it's 'probably correct' is an example of your bias.

If you wish to argue Mr. Spence's merits, or lack thereof, please relegate them elsewhere. Please don't just spout off opinion as fact.- Agentx42 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[This is in response to a message left on my discussion page, similar but not identical to the above:]

First of all, thank you for writing to me, sincerely.

Second, I have no personal axe to grind against Sam Spence. In fact, I love the guy's work. I also happen to realize that many of his compositions are ripoffs of established film scores. Now you're correct, my opinion means bupkus. However, two independent reviewers do something of an authority make; plus, I think it's a topic interesting and informative enough to publish.

Third, you have much merit to your criticism. My first edit was subjective POV (point-of-view) at its worst, and very close to slander. Your deletion brought that to my attention. Further, your second complaint gave me further food for thought: My second edit still contained misleading statements, as you painstakingly described. I re-edited my contribution to address your issues: I made clear these are two and only two sources, and there is both positive and negative views on some selections of his body of work. I hope you find it more agreeable, if not totally acceptable.

Fourth, I believe you meant to put your differences in the section of "Sam Spence's" entry. I've responded in kind here as well; whether you choose to paste your previous message to me here I leave to you. (If I'm making yet another assumption, consider myself chastised.)

Just one more thing: I consider myself reasonable, so don't feel you need to get antagonistic. I can take good criticism, and if you hold my section intolerable, I would not be insulted if you deleted it again; life will go on. Just consider improving it versus sacking it. Once again, thanks, in all sincerity. –TashTish (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sam Spence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022085415/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoXfe3u7u1o to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoXfe3u7u1o

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]