This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notes on a Conditional Form article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Notes on a Conditional Form has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
Notes on a Conditional Form is the main article in the Notes on a Conditional Form series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 15 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tarynrollins.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
(NBT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.0.164 ( talk) 16:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a review from the Weekend Australian 'Review': https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/the-1975-rages-against-the-machine/news-story/353794c22bc0129a112f9b371090c60f 42.241.25.143 ( talk) 09:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm making this a topic here because it's... surprisingly confusing, and I think this is the best location to expand on it.
Basically, the writing credits for this album are a bit hard to determine.
The first source that one would seek out to find them would, of course, be the album's liner notes, which introduced the first issue I had with the page as I found it on the 23rd: it claimed to cite the album's liner notes while actually not representing the credits as shone there. That important page of liner notes can be seen on this discogs page for the CD and this discogs page for the vinyl (click "More images" on both) and this unboxing of a different edition of the vinyl (timestamp is in the link). They all give the same credit, which I will elucidate in due course: "ALL TRACKS WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL & MATTHEW HEALY, EXCEPT 'TONIGHT (I WISH I WAS YOUR BOY)' WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL, MATTHEW HEALY & GUENDOLINE ROME VIRAY GOMEZ, 'DON'T WORRY' WRITTEN BY TIM HEALY & 'THE 1975' WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL, MATTHEW HEALY & GRETA THUNBERG." The credits on the page currently (and on the page I discovered on the 23rd) claim to be sourced from the "inlay cover", while clearly not matching the credits actually given on the inlay cover. If my findings are discounted by some different release of the album with different liner notes included, I would be eager to see them.
The credits as they are on here bear a suspicious similarity to the credits given on this pitchfork article, which were included in a note on previous versions of the page before being axed from the sources in later revisions. These credits differ from the liner notes most radically in that they credit band members Adam Hann and Ross MacDonald as writers alongside Daniel and M. Healy, along with a few additional credits given for samples/interpolations on "Tonight", "Shiny Collarbone", and "Bagsy Not in Net" and the addition of the band members as writers on "Don't Worry". Though possibly more "accurate" in some aspects, this article is, notably, not the liner notes, at least anywhere I've seen, and its contents being noted as such is erroneous.
What complicates the matter even further is that another distinct set can be found at another reputable source, this time the band’s publisher, BMI, whose repertoire is publicly searchable. One night spent searching on my own part on the BMI repertoire revealed this. As with Pitchfork, most of the tracks credit the four members of the band as writers, and additional credits are given to sampled/interpolated writers— in fact, even more sampled writers are credited than on Pitchfork. The entry for “Tonight” adds credits for Lorraine Feather (the co-writer of the Hiroshi Sato song), Barrett Strong, and Norman Whitfield (the latter two co-writers of that blatant Temptations sample). The repertoire’s depiction is also interesting for what additional writers it doesn’t credit: there’s no listing of a song called “The 1975” co-written by Thunberg anywhere, only the one written by the band. “Don’t Worry” actually is in the repertoire, but its writing is also credited exclusively to the band. Also, “Shiny Collarbone” is credited only to Daniel, M. Healy, and Cutty Ranks, as opposed to Pitchfork’s crediting of the whole band and Cutty Ranks.
These credits are also, I hate to say it, not the liner notes. Which comes back to the issue posed here: which do we go with? I personally feel uncomfortable picking and choosing from whichever seems “most correct” on a song-by-song basis, which is why in my own edit I put the credits as they appeared in the liner notes along with an extensive note describing the writing credits as they appeared in other sources (which has apparently been maintained). I think all sets have some degree of truth to them and deserve to be shown.
I appreciate the changes made to the “Samples” section I added— I was thinking that the writing credits I put there might have cluttered it a bit, and it is correct that they’re uncredited everywhere aside from interviews. Were it up to me, that bit would remain as is.
Thanks for reading. Again, if I'm noticeably wrong about something or have missed anything, please let me know. SomethingOfYore ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)SomethingOfYore
@ (CA)Giacobbe: I can't believe I have to explain why sourced genres should be included in the infobox. There are two sources for experimental and one source for pop, rock, and electropop. That's not a big difference. I say we list experimental first and the three genres after that. Why is that such a big problem? Bowling is life ( talk) 00:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bilorv ( talk · contribs) 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, let's take the plunge. I'll be reviewing this as soon as possible. I notice that at around 75,000 characters of prose, WP:SIZERULE would suggest there is too much content for one article here so I'll be considering carefully whether cutting down the level of detail, splitting some topic to another page, rewriting for concision or something else are necessary. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
It's painful for me to say it so I can imagine it'll be a lot more painful to hear, but I think the "Songs" section needs to be cut in its entirety. I've sampled some (last 5 years-ish) WP:ALBUM FAs and GAs and they're all well within the bounds of WP:SIZERULE. Most don't have a "Songs" breakdown, and the only one I could find that does— Abbey Road—has it instead of "Music and structure"&"Themes and lyrics" (or similar). If Abbey Road only gets 6000 words then there's no reason that NOACF should get 12,000. Feel free to incorporate details from "Songs" that would fit into "Recording and production"/"Themes and lyrics"/"Music and structure" but bear in mind that most of the aim here is to cut the word count considerably—between half and two-thirds of what it is now (at the end of all the changes). We shouldn't be aiming for a song-by-song breakdown, particularly as it's a 22-track album, but just to communicate the musical styles and lyrical themes. I know that's hard as there's such a diversity, but shorter content is read more deeply by viewers. Even if the length wasn't an issue, I think five non-free audio clips for one article is too many, and two is already the right amount. If you want somewhere to port the content to, I know the singles pages will already cover those songs in more detail and you might consider Fandom Wiki or Genius annotations.
Artists Respond to NOACF is also too long. The only two secondary sources are Rolling Stone and NME, and I've searched for others but can't find anything. I think the maximum appropriate length here would be for a one-paragraph introduction to the background and a one-sentence description for each art piece. For instance, "MacInnes' contribution for "Streaming" used images from international imageboards such as 4chan, while Agusta YR produced a film within a film for "Then Because She Goes"" and "Satterwhite's art for "Having No Head" is an animated tribute to Breonna Taylor." I like the three images, though, so they could stay beside the text or in a gallery view.
"First bit{{nbsp}}... second bit"
rather than "[...]" per
MOS:ELLIPSIS.Will return to the lead again after assessing all of the body, so I can put it in full context.
I did three or four interviews where I’d said I was going to do an album and by the third interview, they go: ‘Well, is it going to be six months to a year?’ By the third interview, I had a fucking proper date.
[[woke|wake up]]
, as "woke" is specifically slang and a different vernacular (initially AAVU, now slang about social justice; but "wake up" as an idiom predates all of this).With songs like Yeah I Know, the room I’ve got is four syllables. But he's really talking about something more specific about expression. Sure, there's several four-syllable lines to fit with the rhythm, but there's also more extended lyrics (e.g. "Time feels like it's changed"), so this doesn't seem true as written.
More comments to come when I can. I appreciate there's a lot here but this is a big topic, and when I get to the later sections like "Personnel" there might be few or no criticisms as they look very good already. — Bilorv ( talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notes on a Conditional Form article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Notes on a Conditional Form has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
Notes on a Conditional Form is the main article in the Notes on a Conditional Form series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 15 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tarynrollins.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
(NBT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.0.164 ( talk) 16:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a review from the Weekend Australian 'Review': https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/the-1975-rages-against-the-machine/news-story/353794c22bc0129a112f9b371090c60f 42.241.25.143 ( talk) 09:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm making this a topic here because it's... surprisingly confusing, and I think this is the best location to expand on it.
Basically, the writing credits for this album are a bit hard to determine.
The first source that one would seek out to find them would, of course, be the album's liner notes, which introduced the first issue I had with the page as I found it on the 23rd: it claimed to cite the album's liner notes while actually not representing the credits as shone there. That important page of liner notes can be seen on this discogs page for the CD and this discogs page for the vinyl (click "More images" on both) and this unboxing of a different edition of the vinyl (timestamp is in the link). They all give the same credit, which I will elucidate in due course: "ALL TRACKS WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL & MATTHEW HEALY, EXCEPT 'TONIGHT (I WISH I WAS YOUR BOY)' WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL, MATTHEW HEALY & GUENDOLINE ROME VIRAY GOMEZ, 'DON'T WORRY' WRITTEN BY TIM HEALY & 'THE 1975' WRITTEN BY GEORGE DANIEL, MATTHEW HEALY & GRETA THUNBERG." The credits on the page currently (and on the page I discovered on the 23rd) claim to be sourced from the "inlay cover", while clearly not matching the credits actually given on the inlay cover. If my findings are discounted by some different release of the album with different liner notes included, I would be eager to see them.
The credits as they are on here bear a suspicious similarity to the credits given on this pitchfork article, which were included in a note on previous versions of the page before being axed from the sources in later revisions. These credits differ from the liner notes most radically in that they credit band members Adam Hann and Ross MacDonald as writers alongside Daniel and M. Healy, along with a few additional credits given for samples/interpolations on "Tonight", "Shiny Collarbone", and "Bagsy Not in Net" and the addition of the band members as writers on "Don't Worry". Though possibly more "accurate" in some aspects, this article is, notably, not the liner notes, at least anywhere I've seen, and its contents being noted as such is erroneous.
What complicates the matter even further is that another distinct set can be found at another reputable source, this time the band’s publisher, BMI, whose repertoire is publicly searchable. One night spent searching on my own part on the BMI repertoire revealed this. As with Pitchfork, most of the tracks credit the four members of the band as writers, and additional credits are given to sampled/interpolated writers— in fact, even more sampled writers are credited than on Pitchfork. The entry for “Tonight” adds credits for Lorraine Feather (the co-writer of the Hiroshi Sato song), Barrett Strong, and Norman Whitfield (the latter two co-writers of that blatant Temptations sample). The repertoire’s depiction is also interesting for what additional writers it doesn’t credit: there’s no listing of a song called “The 1975” co-written by Thunberg anywhere, only the one written by the band. “Don’t Worry” actually is in the repertoire, but its writing is also credited exclusively to the band. Also, “Shiny Collarbone” is credited only to Daniel, M. Healy, and Cutty Ranks, as opposed to Pitchfork’s crediting of the whole band and Cutty Ranks.
These credits are also, I hate to say it, not the liner notes. Which comes back to the issue posed here: which do we go with? I personally feel uncomfortable picking and choosing from whichever seems “most correct” on a song-by-song basis, which is why in my own edit I put the credits as they appeared in the liner notes along with an extensive note describing the writing credits as they appeared in other sources (which has apparently been maintained). I think all sets have some degree of truth to them and deserve to be shown.
I appreciate the changes made to the “Samples” section I added— I was thinking that the writing credits I put there might have cluttered it a bit, and it is correct that they’re uncredited everywhere aside from interviews. Were it up to me, that bit would remain as is.
Thanks for reading. Again, if I'm noticeably wrong about something or have missed anything, please let me know. SomethingOfYore ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)SomethingOfYore
@ (CA)Giacobbe: I can't believe I have to explain why sourced genres should be included in the infobox. There are two sources for experimental and one source for pop, rock, and electropop. That's not a big difference. I say we list experimental first and the three genres after that. Why is that such a big problem? Bowling is life ( talk) 00:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bilorv ( talk · contribs) 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, let's take the plunge. I'll be reviewing this as soon as possible. I notice that at around 75,000 characters of prose, WP:SIZERULE would suggest there is too much content for one article here so I'll be considering carefully whether cutting down the level of detail, splitting some topic to another page, rewriting for concision or something else are necessary. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
It's painful for me to say it so I can imagine it'll be a lot more painful to hear, but I think the "Songs" section needs to be cut in its entirety. I've sampled some (last 5 years-ish) WP:ALBUM FAs and GAs and they're all well within the bounds of WP:SIZERULE. Most don't have a "Songs" breakdown, and the only one I could find that does— Abbey Road—has it instead of "Music and structure"&"Themes and lyrics" (or similar). If Abbey Road only gets 6000 words then there's no reason that NOACF should get 12,000. Feel free to incorporate details from "Songs" that would fit into "Recording and production"/"Themes and lyrics"/"Music and structure" but bear in mind that most of the aim here is to cut the word count considerably—between half and two-thirds of what it is now (at the end of all the changes). We shouldn't be aiming for a song-by-song breakdown, particularly as it's a 22-track album, but just to communicate the musical styles and lyrical themes. I know that's hard as there's such a diversity, but shorter content is read more deeply by viewers. Even if the length wasn't an issue, I think five non-free audio clips for one article is too many, and two is already the right amount. If you want somewhere to port the content to, I know the singles pages will already cover those songs in more detail and you might consider Fandom Wiki or Genius annotations.
Artists Respond to NOACF is also too long. The only two secondary sources are Rolling Stone and NME, and I've searched for others but can't find anything. I think the maximum appropriate length here would be for a one-paragraph introduction to the background and a one-sentence description for each art piece. For instance, "MacInnes' contribution for "Streaming" used images from international imageboards such as 4chan, while Agusta YR produced a film within a film for "Then Because She Goes"" and "Satterwhite's art for "Having No Head" is an animated tribute to Breonna Taylor." I like the three images, though, so they could stay beside the text or in a gallery view.
"First bit{{nbsp}}... second bit"
rather than "[...]" per
MOS:ELLIPSIS.Will return to the lead again after assessing all of the body, so I can put it in full context.
I did three or four interviews where I’d said I was going to do an album and by the third interview, they go: ‘Well, is it going to be six months to a year?’ By the third interview, I had a fucking proper date.
[[woke|wake up]]
, as "woke" is specifically slang and a different vernacular (initially AAVU, now slang about social justice; but "wake up" as an idiom predates all of this).With songs like Yeah I Know, the room I’ve got is four syllables. But he's really talking about something more specific about expression. Sure, there's several four-syllable lines to fit with the rhythm, but there's also more extended lyrics (e.g. "Time feels like it's changed"), so this doesn't seem true as written.
More comments to come when I can. I appreciate there's a lot here but this is a big topic, and when I get to the later sections like "Personnel" there might be few or no criticisms as they look very good already. — Bilorv ( talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)