Talk:Jugband Blues

Echoes

It says in the articled that Jugband Blues is followed by Wish you were here... this in incorrect. Jugband Blues is preceeded by Wish You Were Here. Wish you were here is no. 10 Jugband Blues no. 11 On every version (on the vinyl it is disc 4 side b, and the side begins with Wish you were here) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Echoes-The-Best-Pink-Floyd/dp/B00005QDW5

[DarkMithras] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.128.226 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jugband Blues/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I got this one. Review forthcoming.

I see this is your first song article. There's a couple of structural, sourcing, and prose issues. Let's compare this page to the Good Article criteria:

• Well-written - Some clunky, unclear sentences to be found. Ex. "The promotional video for the song, filmed in December 1967 for the Central Office of Information in London, about Britain that was to be distributed in the US and Canada.", "Jenner said the song trio that consisted of "Jugband Blues", "Scream Thy Last Scream" and "Vegetable Man", as "amazing songs." The phrasing of "'Jugband Blues' is towards anyone within Barrett's orbit" is fairly colloquial.

• Verifiability - Some sections strike me as conjecture. For instance, the only part of the second paragraph of the Recording section that's sourced is the bit in the middle about the song structure. Refrain from clustering more than two refs together, as it becomes unclear what is citing what (see the entire section contained between "The song is viewed by many fans . . ." and ". . . that they could be read as a criticism of the other band members for forcing him out.[3][4][6][19]"). Don't cite videos on YouTube unless they are pieces of reporting; simply remarking on what happens in a clip is not sufficient. Rely on secondary sources for description, and if a secondary source doesn't describe something, then omit it. I'm trying to ascertain if Mondaq.com fits the reliable source criteria. To be safe, replace this with another reference if you can. Brain-damage.co.uk appears to be a fansite and thus cannot be sourced. The bit about RHCP covering the song in concert strikes me as trivial--lots of bands play songs live, and live covers aren't inherently noteworthy. I wouldn't recommend citing an album review for factual information such as where "Jugband Blues" shows up on the Echoes tracklist. The link to the Salisbury Post is dead.

• Broad in its coverage - Anything available about what inspired the song? If there isn't, that's just how it goes, but if there is, please add it to the article. Make sure the details about when the song was written that are in the lead are also present in the article body as well, as well as the details about the meaning of the song. The list of cover songs should be converted into prose. I'd merge the reception, covers, and later release sections together to minimize so many one-paragraph sections.

• Neutral - appears fairly neutral, although who is expressing what opinion could be clearer in spots.

• Stable - No problems here.

• Images - No images, so no issues here.

I'm putting this article on hold until the outstanding issues are resolved. Contact me on my talk page when you address them all, or if you have any questions. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Well-written and Neutral. Working on Verifiability and Broad in its coverage. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Broad in its coverage, and Verifiability. I can't find anything about what inspired the song, and I don't have another source for the info from Mondaq.com. Though, I stumbled across Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd and in the credits section it lists the members of the SA that played on the track, but I'm not sure if this is from the album booklet or not so I can't confirm this. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "About The Salvation Army, band manager Andrew King said that Barrett 'wanted a massive Salvation Army freak-out, but that's the only time I can remember Norman [Smith] putting his down.'" is missing a word. Foot, I presume? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 09:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about using Mondaq.com as a source. Looking at the site, I see no fact-checking apparatus--it appears that all you have to do to have an article published there is pay. I'd remove it for the time being. In the meantime, knowing that a Salvation Army band played on the record is sufficient for the GA critiera. You don't necessarily have to point out that the band members themselves have still not been identified to a man--what's important is that we know they contributed as a group.

The line "'Jugband Blues' is directed towards anyone within Barrett's proximity" is still awkward. I kind of get what you are saying, but it's still too confusing. Is this the meaning of the song? Is the form the song's lyrics take (Barrett talking to those close to him?)? Likewise the sentence "The video was meant to be about Britain that was to be distributed in the US and Canada" is still confusing. Are you saying the video was supposed to be about Britain, and that it was meant to be distributed in the US and Canada? The entire second paragraph of the Recording section is still insufficiently cited. The only reference included in the paragraph is right in the middle. What references the "some listeners believed . . ." segment? There's a long run-on sentence that starts the second paragraph of the legacy section that's hard to follow. Break it up and make it clearer if you can, making the references clearer as well. Finally, a "churchy" organ is colloquial; rephrase it.

Those are the major remaining issues. Address those and I can pass the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

More or less done, will finish working on the "'Jugband Blues' is directed..." line in the morning. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've finished adressing the points. Please correct me, if I'm wrong. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "'Jugband Blues' was written around the same time as 'Vegetable Man' which is directed towards the music industry and himself,[4] while 'Jugband Blues' is towards anyone within Barrett's proximity" still vexes me, because the meaning is still obtuse. Could you quote the relevant portion of the book here, and then we can try to hash a rewording out?

This section still needs to be addressed: "The song is viewed by many fans as a sad farewell piece by Barrett who, by the beginning of the recording sessions for A Saucerful of Secrets, was already shrinking into a delirious state of mind, exacerbated by his feelings of alienation from the rest of the band,[14] as can be gleaned from the painfully specific lyrics in the song ('I don't care if the sun don't shine / And I don't care if nothing is mine'), although it has been argued that the common interpretation of the lyrics as reflecting his schizophrenia owes more to his popular image more than fact, and that they could be read as a criticism of the other band members for forcing him out.[4][3]" It's a massive run-on sentence, and hopefully by breaking it up into smaller sentences you can clarify what books are backing up what details. As it currently stands this overly long sentence seems to synthesize points. For example, what source is specifying that Barrett's deteriorating mental state "can be gleaned from the painfully specific lyrics in the song"? Who is arguing that "the common interpretation of the lyrics as reflecting his schizophrenia owes more to his popular image more than fact"? Is it the same source that's arguing that "they could be read as a criticism of the other band members for forcing him out"? I also hope that "The song is viewed by many fans..." is supported by the available refs.

On a smaller note, the sentence "The song features a distinctive three-tiered structure: 3/4, 2/4 and 4/4.[6]" might not make sense to those who know little to nothing about music theory. I assume you are trying to convey that the song moves from a section in 3/4 meter, then one in 2/4, and finally a 4/4 section. Reexamine your source and confirm with me. Also, throw in a quick detail about the music video into the lead section, so it can adequately summarize the contents of the article. And while mentioning that "Jugband Blues" was written at the same time as "Vegetable Man" is relevant, including an explanation of what "Vegetable Man" is about isn't, so excise that.

These are the last outstanding remaining issues. Address them and I can pass the article. I appreciate your quick fix-ups. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've finished adressing most of the points, I can't do "The song is viewed by many fans..." long paragraph until tomorrow, as I'm not near the sources. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Don't forget to also look up the section regarding "'Jugband Blues' is towards anyone within Barrett's proximity." WesleyDodds (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

From A Very Irregular Head: In 'Jugband Blues' it is aimed directly at those within Syd's immediate orbit.

Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 18:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Finished. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 18:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it looks much better. I'm going to do some slight rewording to brush up the prose and clarify the meaning in your recent changes. I was actually able to skim a copy of A Very Irregular Head at the library yesterday and figured out that the author's mention of Barrett's humor in both songs was the missing element, so I'm glad it's finally in the page for clarity's sake. The article meets the criteria now, but only just. I advise opening a peer review to help you further improve the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, just one more thing. I'm reading "although it has been argued that the common interpretation of the lyrics as reflecting his schizophrenia[4] and that they could be read as a criticism of the other band members for forcing him out." and it's meaning is pretty garbled. Let's separate the two segments, based on what refs are citing them. Saucerful of Secrets is citing "although it has been argued that the common interpretation of the lyrics as reflecting his schizophrenia", a segment which makes no sense. Breaking down the clause: it has been argued that the common interpretation of the lyrics (which is that they reflect his schizophrenia) . . . is doing what exactly? There's no answer provided. A Very Irregular Head is arguing that the lyrics "could be read as a criticism of the other band members for forcing him out", which is clear when taken on its own, but when combined with the bit from Saucerful it makes for a very confusing sentence. Please clarify this portion of text, and then I can pass the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified the line. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"It has been argued that the common interpretation of the lyrics is reflecting his schizophrenia". Do you mean to say "The common interpretation of the lyrics is that they reflect his schizophrenia"? Likewise, with "and that they could also be read as a criticism of the other band members for forcing him out", do you mean "and it has been argued that they could also be read as a criticism of the other band members for forcing him out"? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done clarified once more. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 12:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Passing at last. Thanks for addressing all my points and working with my review every step of the way to bring this article up to GA status. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)