Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Psychedelic rock

I have started a discussion at Talk:Psychedelic rock about merging many of the psychedelic sub genres into the article and starting clean up on the article. I welcome any input and help anyone might have to offer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Years "Active" section of infobox

Could somebody please explain to me what the vague term "active" means? When does a musician become "active"? When they first show musical talent, perform at the school play, start a band with a bunch of school mates, sign a record deal or release their first single? I can't find the definition anywhere. Cheers. — R² 15:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox Musical artist:

Period in years during which the act was or has been active. Only years should be listed here (for example, do not distinguish between the period Paul McCartney was in The Beatles and his solo career), with non-consecutive periods separated by commas. Periods should be separated by an unspaced en dash (e.g. 1993–2004, 2005–present). See WP:DATE#Longer periods and WP:MOS#En dashes.

Essentially an artist is active when he/she/they are active. Helpful? Another infobox field that should be scrapped? --Kleinzach 00:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's useful for bands (when they form and when they break up are generally clear), but for individuals it isn't as simple. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe that needs to be clarified? --Kleinzach 01:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably best left to common sense & case-by-case consensus. Generally for an individual it's roughly the start of their professional career, so school plays & garage bands don't count. I'd say go for date of earliest recording or professional performance. Jewel, for example, sang with her father in bars & taverns as a child & performed in coffee shops in the early '90s, but didn't embark on a professional music career until 1995 when she signed a recording contract. Similarly, individuals generally become inactive when they retire or when their respective acts break up. Failing that, they may simply fade into inactivity & you have to base the end date on their last known recording or performance. It's not an exact science, and trying to put standards on it is only going to lead to disputes. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute: Thirteenth

With User:87.69.130.159. I'm citing sources, anonymous is not and is accusing me of making invalid contributions and describing those and describing those as incivility. Also So What chord, chord-scale system, Parallel harmony, and less so with Petrushka chord. Hyacinth (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clutchy Hopkins

As best as I can determine, Clutchy Hopkins does not actually exist? Can people take a look and determine if a) reliable sources exist b) who this actually is? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

His actual existence or lack thereof seems to be his shtick. The is a bio of him at amazon.com and you can download MP3s. I suppose the article would be better written if it were about the apparent internet phenomenon because a google search has many hits but no one knows who he is. J04n(talk page) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a couple of refs. He may not exist but the name seems worthy of an article. Flowerparty^☀ 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As a BLP, he certainly needs better sourcing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Triple J Hottest 100, 2009 a copyright violation?

Since Triple J Hottest 100, 2009 (and all of the other hottest 100 listings from 1989 on, each with its own page) is a copyright violation (the composition is a vote, not a listing of facts, and therefore the intellectual property of the organizers), I've listed Triple J Hottest 100, 2009 for speedy deletion. Does this need an AfD to list every one of these pages, or is there an admin who can remove all of these lists? Triple J Hottest 100 has the top songs from each year, which seems appropriate since the entire list is not copied. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some possible factors: 1. I am not entirely clear on how this is different from the copyright status of a track listing for an album (aside from being substantially longer, which might be relevant), which Wikipedia does regularly list. 2. It's not being copied directly from a web page, it's being entered by Wikipedia editors listening to the radio broadcast of the songs. (This won't be true of many of the earlier lists however.) It's not clear to me that the order of presentation of substantial artistic works is itself copyrightable, however such an order was arrived at. But I don't know the precedents. The expression of such an order might be (just as a fact is not copyrightable but an expression of it may be), but the 2009 list isn't being copied from the website and thus isn't a copy of Triple J's written expression. Thayvian (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the order of presentation, it has to do with the compilation of a list which is derived from a series of subjective votes, and not a list of facts. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And this page makes a specific claim of copyright which is not compatible with Wikipedia's uses. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the track listing of the compilation album is a collection of facts, and that would be acceptable use. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced either way on this (or on any of my arguments), but it seems to me that a track listing is a list that is derived from a subjective decision by someone (presumably the artist, the producer etc). It is also a fact (you argue). I don't yet see the bright line between "list subjectively determined by artist, later published as fact on Wikipedia" and "list subjectively determined by large number of voters, compiled by organisation, list is thus definitively not factual" Thayvian (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the major issue underlying this debate is whether or not a publicly voted list's results are the subject of copyright, obviously content published on the ABC websites are subject to their copyright's. I am not personally a lawyer, so cannot comment past my opinion, but i would assume this would be free information due to it being a public vote, and not any one person's opinion (unlike an editorial see Rolling Stones top 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_500_Greatest_Songs_of_All_Time#copyright_protection.3F)). Jimboss123 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed Triple J in regards to this issue.Jimboss123 (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

By this logic isn't the listing of, say, Oscar nominees and award winners a copyright violation? If it's just a "fact" that Slumdog Millionaire won the 2008 Academy Award for best picture (as voted), why isn't it just a "fact" that Billie Jean was No. 41 on the 2009 Triple J Hottest 100? Trevor Andersen (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Article title caps

There's still some confusion and/or inconsistency with the capitalization of compound prepositions like "out of" in work titles (e.g., Bat Out of Hell). I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization#Prepositional phrases, and I'd also like to see the guidelines promoted to general WP:MOSCAPS usage for musical and non-musical composition titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

cool! good start, and i agree, but getting it phrased right is crucial. i'll add a comment over on that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization#Prepositional phrases page ... Sssoul (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Power Ballad as a genre for the infobox?

The subject header there is pretty much the gist of the situation. I encountered a discussion at Talk:Don't Forget (song)#Power ballad as genre where one user is insisting that it is and another is insistent that it not, and I share the "is not opinion". There's already been a few reverts (myself included, for the record) over the matter so if it continues to flare I wanted to seek some wider input on the matter. I looked a bit through Special:WhatLinksHere/Power ballad to see if there were any other cases where a PB was cited as a genre in the manner and so far have found none. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider "power ballad" as a genre. It is not something that a band has written a full album of; usually, it is only one or another minimal amount of songs on a release, which is/are atypical to the other songs on that release. Therefore, I believe that power ballad is not a genre, but just a categorization of certain songs. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 19:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A "power ballad" is a type of song, not a genre of music. That's like saying that "duet", "instrumental", "sing-along", or "guitar solo" are genres. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty good point there, with the comparisons and such; I agree with it. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing from Outline of music?

Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 00:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing? My answer is sources. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)

A few of us at the Madonna bio are having trouble coming to a consensus about what is appropriate for critical commentary regarding the "Legacy" section. Any editors that feel like commenting please do. See the thread here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated The KLF for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD help

I'd be grateful for input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Anthony Jay‎ - probably a borderline case, but on which side of the border? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

" [name changes daily??] is the highest selling artist on Hollywood Records."

I want to alert somebody that youth must be fighting over this designation {highest selling] at Hollywood Records page. I have ABSOLUTELY NO connection to Holywood Records. Just in the interest of cotributing to the betterment of a Wiki page.

" [name changes daily??] is the highest selling artist on Hollywood Records." "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." but NO reference is EVER given. I've seen Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers in quick succession, ALL with no reference!

I put notice to see Talk page and thet Citation is needed but any & ALL attempts I make to notate that proper procedures should be followed are ignored.

I'm sure that someone here knows how to handle this. THANKS
Iknow23 (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If I were in such a situation, I would probably state something about how a list of best-selling artists or the mentioning of highest-selling artist on a label should be avoided, due to this ongoing conflict. I think that is what I'd do. I would also put an invisible message stating to avoid prolonging the mentioned conflict. I've not been in that situation before (maybe it has to do with the fact that I deal with lesser-known music most of the time), but that is probably what I'd do if I were in that situation. Also, if it does keep up at a regular, frequent level, then possibly post a protection request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You.
Iknow23 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to be of service. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 22:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Equipment sections, fancruft?

A lot of artists has very specific sections on this, with people even going as far as edit warring over what strings that are used, etc. They are often unsourced too. Aren't these sections essentially fancruft, and should be treated as such, i.e. removed? Thoughts? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If they can be sourced, then I don't see a problem. Details like this might seem like cruft to those of us who don't work hands-on with instruments, but to those who do it's probably considered essential information. A guitarist reading the article on Buckethead, for example, would probably think the encyclopedia very remiss if it didn't include any information on his equipment. Actually, Buckethead#Equipment is a pretty decent example of how this info can be well-presented and sourced. Certainly if the artist is sponsored by a particular instrument company, or uses custom-built instruments, then this bears mentioning in a comprehensive article about them. Notability doesn't limit article content, so I really can't see a reason to exclude this so long as it can be reliably sourced. I think it all gets down to sourcing and presenting the info in a manner consistent with WP's standards, which probably needs to be hashed out on a case-by-case basis (for example, for some artists a list format might work best while for others prose may be better ... I tend to prefer prose, but in the Buckethead example I think a list format is probably the clearest presentation). Anyway, that's my 2 cents. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla, if appropriately sourced. Form a great many musicians, the equipment that they use is very much a part of who they are and should be included. J04n(talk page) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The guitarist project has a guideline for them. They are a required element for all guitarist articles. But, as mentioned, they need to be written in prose... no lists... and reliably cited. Any guitarist page that is lacking a good gear section... is a sh*tty guitarist page. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the equipment sections do not need deletion. However, if there is an edit war over one of the aspects of the equipment (such as a feud over which picks the guitarist uses), and sources are not involved with the feud, then I would suggest to remove that and only that piece of information until a source is supplied for it. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"By-artist" categorization of cover songs

I've been having a bit of a conflict with Koavf (talk · contribs) lately with regard to song categorization. He's been adding Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs to articles about songs that the band has covered at some point (most on a series of live recordings). These include some 15 song articles such as "Monster Mash", "Louie Louie", and "The Sounds of Silence". I'm not harping on Koavf, as his edits merely made me aware of a larger issue: Is "by artist" categorization of songs which that artist has merely covered appropriate? To my logic, it's not. WP:CAT says that categories are for defining characteristics of the topic, and that articles should be categorized by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article. My interpretation with respect to this issue is: merely because a song article mentions that a certain artist covered that song at some point, doesn't make it their song, and most cover versions certainly aren't defining characteristics of a song.

For example, the fact that the Smashing Pumpkins covered "Monster Mash" on a live recording isn't a defining characteristic of "Monster Mash", and doesn't make it a Smashing Pumpkins songs...it's a Bobby Pickett song that the Pumpkins just happen to have covered at some point in their career. If we added by-artist categories to the article for every artist who's covered it, there'd be at least 14 by-artist categories on "Monster Mash". Very quickly the usefulness of by-artist categorization is significantly reduced. You'd look at Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs and find 15 song that are not, in fact, "Smashing Pumpkins songs", just other people's songs that the SP happen to have covered. But just by looking at the category you wouldn't be able to distinguish the cover songs from the actual Smashing Pumpkins songs. What I'm basically proposing here is that song articles should only be placed in the following "song by artist" categories:

1. That of the original artist who recorded & released the song (for example, Richard Berry for "Louie Louie")
2. That of any artist whose cover version is considered a "defining characteristic" of the song itself (for example, The Kingsmen's recording of "Louie Louie" is the most well-known and culturally significant version)
3. That of any artist who has released a notable cover version of the song that is covered in detail in the article

This last one is somewhat ambiguous, but "notable" can be basically interpreted as:

• Having been released as as single that is covered as a section within the main article (for example, the Alien Ant Farm's version of "Smooth Criminal" does not have its own article, but is covered as its own section within the main article, so Category:Alien Ant Farm songs applies as it includes it in the category with their other released singles). If the cover version has its own article, then the article about the original version does not belong in the "by artist" category of that artist (for example, "Kiss Me" should not be in Category:New Found Glory songs, as their version has its own article at Kiss Me (New Found Glory)).
• Having charted on a significant music chart (for example, The Smashing Pumpkins' version of "Landslide" wasn't released as a stand-alone single but nevertheless made it to #3 on the Modern Rock Tracks chart and is significant enough to be on their greatest hits album, so it could reasonably be included in the SP songs category)

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I know it's a long post, but the goal is to keep by-artist categorization useful and to make sure that the categories are based on defining characteristics of the song. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My take I have generally included "X songs" (not X, but X) to articles if the artist has either released a version of that cover—single or otherwise—or if that artist's live cover of the song is somehow notable; i.e. if there is coverage of the notability of the performer covering the song within the article itself. There is no standard for this anywhere to my knowledge and it would be wise to determine whether or not (e.g.) Unchained Melody is a U2 song or not (it was a B-side.) Or if "Boys" is a Beatles song. In the latter case, we might be left with the curious circumstance where all of The Beatles album tracks are in Category:The Beatles songs except their covers, some of which are certain more notable or famous as Beatles songs than others. (E.g. their cover of "Twist and Shout" is more famous than "Sexy Sadie".) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Illa Zilla, the descriptors for criterion 3 seem reasonable. We'll see if it leads to new sections being added to song pages for each cover version. I'm not sold on the live cover argument if the only criterion is a mention in the article, look at all of the categories Crazy Train would get. J04n(talk page) 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla too, can you imagine how many categories would need adding to "My Way"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JD554 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think Illa Zilla describes the best approach. If a song is only covered in live settings or B-side, it should not be catergorised as a song by that artist, unless there is over-riding evidence that the cover is important to the song itself. So "Unchained melody" may have a couple of artists that reach this level, but a B-side by U2 or any other band does not make the grade. Released singles have slightly more claim, but agian should only be categorised if they have significant impact on perception of the song itself (ie, is the most famous release of the song or considered definitive, not simply every single, whether or not it was famous/successful/notable).YobMod 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable songs that do not have their own pages seems a bit of a stretch. And that is the crux of the issue, it seems to me; anything notable enough to be categorized can be mentioned on the page and linked to, so it would not need a category. If the article is specifically about a standard that gets covered a lot, rather than an individual recording, then fine. Anarchangel (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla, below, is right; I was forgetting it is not a perfect world. Subjects worthy of stubs get deleted as stubs or get sections in other articles, if they can. I find the variety of article size in WP to be one of its charms, whereas some would be happy if everything that was not a FA was deleted. In the light of that, I accept categorization of artists whose versions are mentioned in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod, the reason I feel that released singles should be deserving of categorization is that these typically have their own sections within the main article (see Smooth Criminal and I Love Rock 'n' Roll for examples), therefore by-artist categorization is necessary in order for the single to appear in the category of that artist's songs ("I Love Rock 'n' Roll" logically ought to appear in Category:Britney Spears songs, as it's one of her singles, even though it's a cover and just one of several). I personally wouldn't put the threshold so high as "must have significant impact on perception of the song itself". I think being released as a single and worthy of its own section within the article is enough. This seems to be both common practice and common sense, as a released single ought to appear in a category of that artist's songs. If these were in their own articles then they certainly would be categorized by artist, it's just that our current trend (which I'm in favor of) is to present them within the main article about the song rather than as stand-alones. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IllaZilla, how is your #2 above different from #3, i.e., is there an important difference between "defining characteristic" and "notable"? It seems to me we can have two rules, not three. Wouldn't any cover version that was also considered a "defining characteristic" of the song also be notable? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Notable" means, more or less, that it passes WP:NSONGS. For example, "Smooth Criminal" is notable enough in its own right that Alien Ant Farm's cover version isn't really a "defining characteristic" of the original...the song was a #7 hit 13 years before Alien Ant Farm covered it. But Alien Ant Farm's version is notable in and of itself as well: it was a #1 hit in 2 countries. By the criteria of NSONGS the Alien Ant Farm version could be its own article, and there are certainly enough potential sources out there that one could make an argument for splitting it. But our current status quo, that I happen to agree with, seems to be that cover versions, even those released as singles or that are notable in their own right, ought to be covered in the main article about the song in order to provide better context of the topic. Similar situations are Britney Spears' version of "I Love Rock 'n' Roll", My Chemical Romance & The Used's version of "Under Pressure", My Chemical Romance's version of "Desolation Row", and 311's version of "Lovesong". Each of these are notable, but are not the most well-known or significant versions nor are they "defining characteristics" of the songs. Most have their own section within the main article, with their own infoboxes, tracklists, and chart positions. Basically multiple articles have been merged together for better context, even though each topic could technically stand alone. This is what #3 is meant to cover: since these singles are part of their respective artists' discographies, the articles ought to be in the "song by artist" categories of those artists (eg. I Love Rock 'n' Roll does belong in Category: Britney Spears songs, because the coverage of her single is contained in that article). Does that make sense? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at your question again, I think I misread it. What you're saying is "isn't a version that's considered a 'defining characteristic' of the song 'notable' by definition, and so couldn't #2 be merged into #3?" My answer is yes, you're probably right. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant.

Regarding having multiple articles when a song has multiple notable versions, I was under the impression that there should be only one article for a song even if multiple versions are notable. I'll have to read WP:NSONGS because it seems there is more to it than that. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Category: X cover song

Eureka! It is just so obvious now, after reading what IllaZilla said at the top, about not being able to tell SP covers from SP songs; just make a new Category:Smashing Pumpkins cover songs! (and other bands, of course). Others might prefer different wording, like Category: X covers, and that would be fine, also. Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That...is a terrible idea. You'd still wind up with way too many categories on a song article that are not "defining characteristics" of the song in any way (for example, you'd still have 14 "by artist" categories on Monster Mash, for each artist that has ever covered it). This is a semantic answer to a substantive problem. Besides, what goes in a category titled "xxx cover songs"? Covers by that artist, or covers of that artist? The solution here is not creating new or more categories, it's using the categories we have in the most effective and intuitive manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)