Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Bloc Party studio albums/archive1
Bloc Party studio albums
edit
This is a Featured Topic nomination that easily fulfils the criteria in the vein of Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/M.I.A. albums. Thanks to Garden for working on them with me, and to Timmeh for his speedy and always excellent GA reviews. Shout out to everyone else who commented at FAC for two of the articles. Rafablu88 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: I feel we all need to get the bottom of this, for future reference if anything, because I don't think "Bloc Party studio albums" is that appropriate. The grey area is remix albums, which the entity in question has no input in the creative process. Do we consider the new songs half-band/half remixer, or 10%/90%, or 100% band, or 100% remixer? Because the answer will have a bearing on this. Personally, I consider them all 100% remixer in the vein of hip-hop artists who use small/large samples to create something their own under license, free use or otherwise. But if I make this "Bloc Party albums" (which I did originally) then someone will object as below that the remix albums are the band's albums and should be included. Having "studio albums" is also problematic because a live album IS 100% a band's work and would have to be included, but "studio and live albums" is just plain wrong. So, I don't mind if you object, just shed some light into this conundrum. Rafablu88 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - pains be to do this becuase I love Bloc Party (saw them at the iTunes Festival last week!) but you're missing Silent Alarm Remixed and Intimacy Remixed. Precedent (e.g. with M.I.A. albums, and every other "albums" topic even) is that "albums" topics have to include all albums, studio or otherwise. Both the remix albums got a decent number of reviews so they should be GAable - rst20xx (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Examples: M.I.A. albums contains mixtape Piracy Funds Terrorism. Powderfinger albums contains live album These Days: Live in Concert and compilation album Fingerprints: The Best of Powderfinger, 1994–2000. Wilco albums contained live album Kicking Television: Live in Chicago but was recently demoted for missing Mermaid Avenue and Mermaid Avenue Vol. II - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, the remix albums are not really their work though. It's other artists moulding their songs. Piracy Funds Terrorism is explictly the work of M.I.A albeit with a producer, but the key is that she actually went into the studio to do it. I'm gonna change this to "Bloc Party studio albums" and that should qualify. Rafablu88 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The two remix albums are the work of Bloc Party, in collaboration with whoever remixed them. I'm going to continue to oppose, because the name change is basically an arbitrary scope reduction to get around the fact that the remix albums aren't up to scratch. The scope of the topic is now too narrow, IMO. People didn't agree with a potential topic rename for Wilco albums, either. And both the remix albums were pretty big releases for Bloc Party too, getting lots of reviews, and the second even got a single - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid none of your examples match this one. I've explained Piracy Funds Terrorism. The Powderfinger albums are either live or singles from STUDIO albums merged into one compilation. The Wilco albums missing are both studio. Finally, Bloc Party did not collaborate with whoever did the remix albums. The label, Wichita Recordings, sent copies of the songs to random artists and compiled a tracklist with the best that were sent back. Bloc Party neither worked with said artists or even entered the remix making process. The scope is fine. Rafablu88 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK I didn't mean to imply they actively collaborated but I did mean to imply they had a hand in it, in that they created the songs remixed, so in that sense the end product is the result of both parties. This is indeed different from the past examples in that it deals with remix albums and not compilation/live albums but the fact still stands that it was agreed that the other topics couldn't narrow their scopes to just "studio albums" and I don't see why this is any different. If the band releases a live album, then what? You rename the topic to "studio and live albums"? rst20xx (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would have totally objected to those articles being renamed, too. This is different. Bloc Party had no input in the process. They produced studio albums which the label then sent off to other artists. Also, if a live album was released then I would gladly remove the FT myself until I GAd all live and remix albums to nominate "Bloc Party albums". Rafablu88 23:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You could just as easily say that Powderfinger had no creative input in their greatest hits album in that it was put together by their label. Same level of input as Bloc Party had in the remix albums- rst20xx (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can't. Powderfinger's compilation is simply songs from their STUDIO albums cherrypicked to create a new record, hence it is totally and utterly their work. If the label sent those songs to other artists to change and Powderfinger had no input in the process, either contractually or physically/musically, then it is not their compilation. If I was nominating "Franz Ferdinand (studio) albums", then I would definitely have to include Blood as, whilst a remix of sorts (dub), it was created with the band's input in the studio whilst the producer Dan Carey was remoulding the songs himself. Again, I stress that this nom is different. Rafablu88 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- But what I'm saying with Powderfinger is that all the songs on the compilation album are already included in the topic, namely on their original studio albums, so Powderfinger's creative input on that album is already represented elsewhere. I just don't see how that album has anything more to do with Powderfinger than the remix albums have to do with Bloc Party. I feel we're going in circles now... rst20xx (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That compilation IS Powderfinger's work and should be included. Silent Alarm Remixed and Intimacy Remixed are the works of other artists who used elements of Bloc Party songs to create something new under license from Wichita. It doesn't make them Bloc Party songs. That's why we don't say "SAR is the first remix album by Bloc Party". We say "SAR is the remix album to Bloc Party's first studio album". The term "cover" may be more appropriate for the songs on those remix albums regardless of what the marketing says. Or even samples like in hip-hop records which use elements of other songs and have to acknowledge that in the credits. Rafablu88 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- But what I'm saying with Powderfinger is that all the songs on the compilation album are already included in the topic, namely on their original studio albums, so Powderfinger's creative input on that album is already represented elsewhere. I just don't see how that album has anything more to do with Powderfinger than the remix albums have to do with Bloc Party. I feel we're going in circles now... rst20xx (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can't. Powderfinger's compilation is simply songs from their STUDIO albums cherrypicked to create a new record, hence it is totally and utterly their work. If the label sent those songs to other artists to change and Powderfinger had no input in the process, either contractually or physically/musically, then it is not their compilation. If I was nominating "Franz Ferdinand (studio) albums", then I would definitely have to include Blood as, whilst a remix of sorts (dub), it was created with the band's input in the studio whilst the producer Dan Carey was remoulding the songs himself. Again, I stress that this nom is different. Rafablu88 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You could just as easily say that Powderfinger had no creative input in their greatest hits album in that it was put together by their label. Same level of input as Bloc Party had in the remix albums- rst20xx (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would have totally objected to those articles being renamed, too. This is different. Bloc Party had no input in the process. They produced studio albums which the label then sent off to other artists. Also, if a live album was released then I would gladly remove the FT myself until I GAd all live and remix albums to nominate "Bloc Party albums". Rafablu88 23:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK I didn't mean to imply they actively collaborated but I did mean to imply they had a hand in it, in that they created the songs remixed, so in that sense the end product is the result of both parties. This is indeed different from the past examples in that it deals with remix albums and not compilation/live albums but the fact still stands that it was agreed that the other topics couldn't narrow their scopes to just "studio albums" and I don't see why this is any different. If the band releases a live album, then what? You rename the topic to "studio and live albums"? rst20xx (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid none of your examples match this one. I've explained Piracy Funds Terrorism. The Powderfinger albums are either live or singles from STUDIO albums merged into one compilation. The Wilco albums missing are both studio. Finally, Bloc Party did not collaborate with whoever did the remix albums. The label, Wichita Recordings, sent copies of the songs to random artists and compiled a tracklist with the best that were sent back. Bloc Party neither worked with said artists or even entered the remix making process. The scope is fine. Rafablu88 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The two remix albums are the work of Bloc Party, in collaboration with whoever remixed them. I'm going to continue to oppose, because the name change is basically an arbitrary scope reduction to get around the fact that the remix albums aren't up to scratch. The scope of the topic is now too narrow, IMO. People didn't agree with a potential topic rename for Wilco albums, either. And both the remix albums were pretty big releases for Bloc Party too, getting lots of reviews, and the second even got a single - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, the remix albums are not really their work though. It's other artists moulding their songs. Piracy Funds Terrorism is explictly the work of M.I.A albeit with a producer, but the key is that she actually went into the studio to do it. I'm gonna change this to "Bloc Party studio albums" and that should qualify. Rafablu88 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Examples: M.I.A. albums contains mixtape Piracy Funds Terrorism. Powderfinger albums contains live album These Days: Live in Concert and compilation album Fingerprints: The Best of Powderfinger, 1994–2000. Wilco albums contained live album Kicking Television: Live in Chicago but was recently demoted for missing Mermaid Avenue and Mermaid Avenue Vol. II - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - in response to your question above, I think it depends on the style of usage going on. Samples will use less of the song being sampled than a remix does. Also I wouldn't necessarily muddle in the issue of ownership of the end product, because even if someone owns something 100%, does not mean they 100% created it. There's also the issue of officiality - the Bloc Party remix albums are officially Bloc Party albums, unlike The Grey Album which is a bootleg (whoever owns that...), and that gives the Bloc Party albums some weight. In the case of a licensed remix, as per the ones we're dealing with here, I'd say the end product is probably partly band and partly remixer (and no doubt so would many of the Bloc Party fans who go out and buy the remix albums), the remixer is augmenting the work of the band. As a result of all these factors, I feel that the Bloc Party albums are partly the work of Bloc Party. And finally and most importantly, this is reflected in the fact that they have their name on the box! I think that topics should include "official" remix albums like this one - rst20xx (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (for the time being) - Since the BPI have redesigned their website, the certification level for A Weekend in the City in both the album article and the discography article are unverified. We can but hope that the BPI get the awards database back online soon, but it isn't looking good. --JD554 (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I've removed the nom. I can't be arsed with all the pedantry here. I could use my time more constructively to get more articles to GA/FA. And the AWITC certification was verified by every one when it was free to do so (ask Garden and others) and by me now it is a subscription service after I signed up. Even at FAC they accept Subscription services on good faith if nothing conscientious is cited. Also I'm sure you can add up the sales data and you'll see it's easily Gold in the UK following the certification limits. Rafablu88 10:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Saying you have verified it and how you verified would have sufficed without the arseyness. Hey ho. --JD554 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment wasn't meant to be personal. I'm just generally frustrated with all the Wikipedia legalese that goes on sometimes. I was right in always focusing on just improving articles. Although, when I bring this nom back with the remix albums, you better support... or else. ;) Rafablu88 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Make it a mighty fine nomination and I'll see what I can do ;-p --JD554 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment wasn't meant to be personal. I'm just generally frustrated with all the Wikipedia legalese that goes on sometimes. I was right in always focusing on just improving articles. Although, when I bring this nom back with the remix albums, you better support... or else. ;) Rafablu88 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Saying you have verified it and how you verified would have sufficed without the arseyness. Hey ho. --JD554 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- This nomination was withdrawn by the nominator on 01:08, 29 July 2009. I'm going to archive it properly - rst20xx (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)