![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Hello, I just noticed there's no article about the Al Jarreau album 'look to the rainbow' instead that phrase is redirected to the Astrud Gilberto album. Due to the album is one of my alltime favourites I'd really like to see an article on it - I would even try to make one on my own. However it will take me a while to collect facts and edit the page.
In the meantime I wonder if anyone's allready working on it. Is there a list of album articles that are under construction somewhere?
Btw I tried before to bring the Slickaphonics into discussion but unfortunately they are neither published on a major label nor have they ever been in any charts as far as I can see. 'Look to the Rainbow' was published by Warner and is been ranked so it should meet the guidelines for an article (1977: Look to the Rainbow (Warner Bros. Records) – US# 49, R&B# 19, Jazz# 5) Al Jarreau#Live albums
btw. I got a nice reply to my words about the Slickaphonics but didn't find a way to answer to that. Is that answering feature only for moderators or am I just blind? Is it by editing the page? I wouldn't dare to change anotherones article without beeing absolutely sure what I'm doing. P.S. I just tried to figure out by opening the above article and after leaving without saving I found the above text in that article - I have no idea how that happened and have now removed it . I hope I didn't make a mess. If so I apologise ... :\
Mli63 ( talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I now submitted the article for review. Mli63 ( talk) 09:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I found articles that could help - now looking if I can find them online - any suggestions?
(from
http://www.jazzinstitut.de/Jazzindex/Jarreau_Al.pdf)
Lee Underwood: Profile. Al Jarreau, in: Down Beat, 43/16 (7.Oct.1976), p. 37-38 (F/I)
"Gilmore": Al Jarreau – "Look to the Rainbow", in: Down Beat, 44/16 (1977), p. 24 (R)
Joachim Ernst Berendt: Al Jarreau. A Ritual from the Throat, in: Jazz Forum, #49 (1977), p. 34-36 (F/I)
Joachim Ernst Berendt: Al Jarreau. Das Ritual aus der Kehle, in: Jazz Forum, #49 (1977), p. 35-37 (F/I)
Francis Hofstein: En Direct. Al Jarreau, in: Jazz Magazine, #252 (Feb/Mar.1977), p. 6 (C)
Leonard Feather: Report from Hollywood. Glowing Jarreau, in: Melody Maker, 28.May 1977, p. 55
Lee Underwood: Al Jarreau. The Amazing Acrobat of Scat, in: Down Beat, 45/6 (23.Mar.1978), p. 15-16,37-39 (F/I)
... what have I started? *sigh* ;) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mli63 (
talk •
contribs)
19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Mli63: At Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources it says, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.... When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.... In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited." — Mudwater ( Talk) 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
That was fun ... :) Thanks for the quick review and thank you all very much for your support. There's one thing left for the moment. Shouldn't the title be Look to the Rainbow (Al Jarreau album)? And looking for 'Look to the Rainbow' still redirects to Astrud Gilberto. But I guess that's just some DB update issues. Again thanks a lot!! Mli63 ( talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks Mli63, and thanks to everyone who helped with this. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Richhoncho, I was saying there was not a need to disambiguate that much. The album is the primary topic, and shouldn't need to be disambiguated further. (Also, it's MrMoustacheMM).
MrMoustacheMM (
talk)
22:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm still quite sure that, in general, an album can be a primary topic, and therefore not have a disambiguated title. That said, most editors who have commented here are not convinced that the Al Jarreau album is the primary topic, and even I think that there is room for argument on that point. I'm now feeling ambivalent about whether the title should be disambiguated or not. So feel free to consider me neutral on this question. — Mudwater ( Talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
if I may again (as I'm 'guilty' of this): I'd feel more comfortable if it was 'Look to the Rainbow (Al Jarreau album)' for a simple reason. I believe Al jarreau wouldn't want to be put 'on top' of Astrud Gilberto and vice versa. So if there are two albums with the same name they should be treated equaly. Chart action does not make one music more important than the other. Just my 2 Pfennig. Regards Mli63 ( talk) 17:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
AS there was no objection, I have moved without a RM. A disambiguation page is now at Look to the Rainbow. I have made the necessary dabs. Improvements always welcome. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Can a song that was released solely for streaming, and/or free download, and/or one that is available for download immediately after completed a pre-order for an upcoming album, be considered a single? Or does it have to be available, even if for free, through a retailer such as iTunes or Amazon to qualify as a single? Many songs by Lecrae from his Gravity and Anomaly albums were released for free streaming and/or free download, and were touted by both his label and reliable sources (such as Billboard and MTV) as singles. Would these be technically singles or merely buzz singles?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me give an example: the promotional songs for Sleigh Bells' sophomore album Reign of Terror. This album only had one official single, " Comeback Kid." However, many of what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source will tell you that "Born to Lose" and "End of the Line" were also singles from this album, including: Consequence of Sound, Coup de Main, Jackson Guitars, MTV, Spin, Music Trajectory, Glamour, The Fader, Flavorwire, Stereogum, Pitchfork, Paste, Filter, Vulture, Consequence of Sound, Spin, CMJ, Rolling Stone, MTV, Exclaim! (some sources are listed twice, but they are different links for both songs). However, "End of the Line" was only released as a music video and "Born to Lose" was only released as a digital stream. Neither track was released independently of the album as a download (either free or for pay) nor was it released in a physical format. I've even checked eBay in case I missed the release of a limited-edition single, and multiple international iTunes and Amazon websites to see if they were released as singles outside of the US, and still no evidence that these two songs were ever released as a single. So now we're given a choice: Do we ignore the fact that these songs actually aren't singles and just go with what the sources say because reliable sources are the foundation of Wikipedia, or do we ignore what the sources say and accurately represent these songs as non-singles? We can't pick both options and there's no middle ground, so one of these items has to be ignored. I'd hope everyone here would be more in favor of the truth and an accurate representation of the information. Fezmar9 ( talk) 15:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added |Venue=
(for live albums) and |Studio=
(for studio albums; and the place where live albums are "finished") to {{
Infobox album}}. This removes the need to shoe-horn such data into |Recorded=
(or we could also create |recorded_date=
, and deprecate the existing parameter). This improves
data granularity.
I've also
proposed an equivalent property to |Studio=
, for Wikidata (which already has
P766 "event location" for live albums).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
|Venue=
. Or you can leave the parameter blank, just as (at the time of writing) the current infoboxes have no venue listed as part of |recorded=
. Or use |Venue=Various
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Hello. An editor and I have hit a stand still in an article related to this project regarding genre. Could some editors weight in on it here please? thank you! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 00:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej ( talk) 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No Ripcord is linked from nearly 200 pages, mostly in the review infoboxes on album articles, but the page has been deleted in the past. Should this have an article? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
A Big Cheese (magazine) review was added to the template in The Blackest Beautiful article. It appears to be a print-publication but is not featured in the reliable sources list. Is it actually reliable? Should we add it to the list or not?
Also, the article for Rock Hard (magazine) was deleted yesterday citing its lack of secondary sources and notability. Would this affect its reliability, since it is also featured on the list? Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 19:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's quite possible this isn't the right place to ask this. If so, sorry.
I constantly see the construction "upon its release" in articles about songs and albums (not to mention other forms of entertainment like movies). For example: "Upon its release, the album received positive reviews from critics." I've never seen a case where this has been useful information: who cares when the thing was reviewed? Music isn't typically reviewed before it's released or at least finished.
Is there somewhere this can be written down as a bit of guidance? It's such a petty complaint but the term's ubiquity drives me mad. Popcornduff ( talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War, about how the songs in a track listing should be numbered. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater ( Talk) 13:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The article for Splinter by The Offspring is their first album to have the label on the cover. Is the article's statement accurate? Is the label actually on the cover art, or is it a removable sticker like it is on their two later studio albums? Does anyone know? 173.51.130.250 ( talk) 05:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It has come to my attention the second album by Australian indie band Cloud Control has no page on Wikipedia. This band is fairly significant in the Australian indie music scene and was nominated for a number of awards in 2013 including the highly coverted J Award. It seems to me that the band has been around long enough and the album was popular enough to warrant a page on this website.
I would be more than happy to assist with the page and apply my knowledge of the band/album, but I have only recently joined Wikipedia as a user and will need some assistance from someone who knows what they are doing. But I believed that this would be a great place for me to start!
Please reply here or on my talk page if you are interested in helping me develop the page. I love Australian alternative music so I would have no problems retrieving the info!!
Thanks - Hori.horizontal ( talk) 06:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC) - THERE IS NO SPOON
This is a notice about Category:Albums articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we use Perfect Sound Forever (magazine) as a reliable source? The creator of the site Jason Gross has written as a freelance writer for various outputs: Village Voice (from 1998 to 2013), PopMatters (2005-2013) Red Bull Music Academy, Time Out, Spin (2006-2010), The Wire, Relix. etc. (more sources here).
The site was also used in several published books on musicians such as Rock 'til You Drop: The Decline from Rebellion to Nostalgia (published by Verso), The Story of Crass (published by Omnibus Press), and Recombo DNA: The Story of Devo, or How the '60s Became the '80s (published by Hal Leonard Corporation), just to name a few.
Gross' work is referenced through RocksBackPages, notably the large amount of interviews he's done over the years.
So is this site a yay or a nay? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The credentials of that site are VERY impressive. I'd say, absolutely it's a reliable source. Interviews are statements by the band members, so they would automatically be reliable per WP:SPS anyway.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for some guidance/consensus on how to provide infobox categories (ie. "live album"/"studio album" for an album that is
DISEman ( talk) 01:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Many supposedly live albums are actually re-recorded in the studio, to a greater or lesser extent, with some having only crowd sounds from the original concert. Conversely, some bands perform concerts, with an audience, in a recording- or television- studio, and record and release those without (much) overdubbing. Good luck sorting that lot out! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Albums articles that would be affected by this action are these:
If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Albums' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,the large-scale content removal, particularly by Footballfan49, seems to be vandalism but I don't have the topic knowledge to judge how far back down the history to revert to. Can you help, please? Just Chilling ( talk) 20:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies if this has been covered/discussed to death before, but I'm new here. I'd be curious to know the reason why, when I'm looking at the yearly pages of album releases, "debut albums" are not included. I understand the usefulness of a debut albums category, though I would consider "debut albums" a subset of "albums". What is the thinking behind not assigning debut albums both categories? Or perhaps more to the point--is someone going to undo my changes if I add the album by year category to pages for debut albums? Caseyroberson ( talk) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I read some discussion about Robert Christgau's reviews, which is what made me ask this question: is there a guideline for which albums can link to which reviews? The Robert Christgau case is an interesting one because people often give "the review is written by Robert Christgau!" as a reason to include his reviews. To me, this seems similar to an Argument from authority, which is commonly considered a logical fallacy if it is not supported by additional arguments. Similarly, I (a completely unknown reviewer) might write a brilliant album review, but this would probably be rejected on similar grounds. While I don't mind this personally (I am not planning to get into album reviewing anyway), I do think this is a bit of a problem. Is a review's author the only selection criterion that we currently use, or is there more to it? If the former, is this something that can be changed, or are there reasons for this that I am not aware of? Arno Sluismans ( talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposed; discuss there by clicking above. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Can cited quotes come from articles (from reliable sources) that are not on an album, but do give a brief review of the album? And does a review need to be contemporary to be cited? -- Lpdte77 ( talk) 06:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move is discussed; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Page move requested; discuss there. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Superdrag's Señorita EP was released first as two separate 7" records in 1994. The records were re-released as a CD in 1999. All of which were on Darla. Not sure how to cite this other than being alive and owning the physical copies. I can scan them if necessary. Just thought someone might want to fix this error. Thanks, --Eric Schultz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericapnea ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Does an album need to meet each of the 7 criteria presented at WP:NALBUMS for it to be notable? -- Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just making some discussion to see whether or not Sea of Tranquility should be used as a source or not. It appears it was a print magazine at one point if that helps: FAQ page here. Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sea of Tranquility is a well respected progressive rock magazine, an authority on the genre. It is a very reliable source. 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There is evidence of Sea of Tranquility being a reliable source. There is no evidence of Mudvayne being a nu-metal band. 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 01:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
PopMatters has featured contributions by one of Sea of Tranquility's writers: [4] "Jordan Blum holds an MFA in Creative Writing and is the founder/Editor-in-Chief of an online literary/multimedia journal called The Bookends Review. He specializes in progressive rock and also writes for Delusions of Adequacy, Examiner, and Sea of Tranquility" 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
More citations of Sea of Tranquility here: [5] [6] [7] [8] 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 22:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, by whose standards is this not a reliable source? The magazine is frequently cited by prog/hard rock/metal fans and bands. 63.155.164.33 ( talk) 03:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking over this discussion, and I see very little addressing the reliability of Sea of Tranquility. What there is mostly discussion of is its notability, which can help determine reliability, but is not crucial. A source can be reliable without being notable. There are thousands of academic books that would never warrant an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that they aren't reliable. Here is the definition of a reliable source for Wikipedia: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WikiProject Albums has an additional guideline: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." So, how does Sea of Tranquility hold up? It has an editorial and writing staff, is published by a third-party (i.e., the writers themselves do not publish the content), and, though not essential for reliability standards, it was formerly a print magazine. The only sticky part is how do we determine a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Mentions by other sources do not translate into a reputation for accuracy. A reputation for accuracy translates into a reputation for accuracy. The best determiner of that would be people who know of the publication and can speak to its reputation and accuracy. Now, if you want mentions in other sources, in order to help determine its influence and impact, there are two books which cite the publication: Alice in Chains: In the Studio (page unknown) and Rammstein on Fire: New Perspectives on the Music and Performances, page 87. So far, I'm seeing a case for this publication being reliable. A note to the IP above though: Piero Scaruffi has been determined not to be a reliable source on Wikipedia, except for his reviews and articles that were published by a third party.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing that might be relevant is that Batmura was spamming Sea of Tranquility references across a ton of articles, especially using refs that were written by Sea of Tranquility staff writer Murat Batmaz. [9] [10] Batmura was doing this in 2011 and 2014. This conflict-of-interest promotion should not have diminished the authority of Sea of Tranquility but it did increase my vigilance and cynicism. Binksternet ( talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add Classic Rock magazine to the list of sources. This 2010 Guardian piece reports it as one of the UK's best-selling music magazines. Looking at the October 2014 issue and one I've dug up from June 2010, the album reviewers include Charles Shaar Murray, David Quantick and David Stubbs, along with a host of names I recognise from UK mags such as Mojo, Record Collector, Uncut and Q: Terry Staunton, Paul Moody, Neil Jeffries, Gavin Martin, Paul Sexton, Kris Needs. Many of the magazine's reviews are available online; although, from the ones I've checked, I notice that the 10-point rating/score from the print magazine isn't reproduced with the online review. JG66 ( talk) 11:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. I've just added the magazine to the list of sources. Cheers, JG66 ( talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether Acclaimed Music is an acceptable source to support mention of an album or song's inclusion/position in critics' best-of polls and lists? The website's not great, in that it's impossible to provide a direct link to a particular album or even a year. But click on a particular year, then an album or a song, and details are provided of a work's inclusion in a lot of interesting (and notable) lists … Any thoughts? JG66 ( talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that individual pages can be located by album and song through a google search (i.e., [album/song title] + Acclaimed Music). There are a few album articles for which I'd like to use Acclaimed as the source for positions on critics' lists and/or reviewer ratings – Layla and All Things Must Pass, for example. So, if anyone's got any objections, I'd obviously rather hear them now(!). JG66 ( talk) 08:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Been meaning to raise this for a while. Starting with the April 2012 issue, Uncut changed its rating system from stars (max. five) to scores out of ten ( this from a RateYourMusic user). Online though, Uncut's site reproduces pre-April '12 reviews mixing the two systems; in other words, an album that originally received 5 out of 5 stars ends up with a numerical score of 5 out of 10. It's most noticeable when a work that was the mag's Album of the Year receives an apparently average rating online of 5/10. Another example is Bowie's Reality (2003), the online review for which carries a 4/10 rating, whereas – and the quote beginning "While it's very much a rock album …" is common to both – Metacritic records the mag's 2003 review as 80 (= 4/5). Or take Clapton's Me and Mr. Johnson: Uncut gave it 4 stars out of 5 in 2004, according to the Muze-created product description at CD Universe, or 80 again at Metacritic; online at uncut.co.uk, it's rendered as 4/10. (Again, there's a quote common to all those sources: "at 58, he sounds like a man …")
So, while adding a specific date at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES for when the magazine crossed over to its new rating system might be welcome, I wonder whether it might be an idea to also add something that comments on this discrepancy. Reason being, there are hundreds (thousands?) of album reviews available at uncut.co.uk, but their usefulness is compromised, from the point of view of including a rating, at least. Any thoughts? JG66 ( talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks everyone. I took a stab at dealing with this on the Sources page. Just thinking though, it would be better to also advise editors to add an explanation in what I've been referring to as "buried text". (And perhaps remove mention of gaining consensus? – I wouldn't want to encourage that each and every instance lead to a debate. Wouldn't want to discourage discussion either, of course …) So does anyone know the correct term for this type of text, the "buried text"? JG66 ( talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Just reworded to include mention of hidden text as a place for explanation in the album article. (Wordy or what?!) If anyone has a better idea about how to address this on the WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES page, please discuss and/or go for it. Perhaps a link to this talk page discussion might allow for cutting down what's needed there? Not sure … JG66 ( talk) 10:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As more artists are spending a considerable amount of time in an indie and self-promoted marketplace, I'd like some ideas on how to list album articles.
If an artist releases an independent album or two and then gets signed to a major label, does that major label release become the artist's debut album or first album or is it their second or third release? Does it depend on the sources? Does it depend on sales of those indie releases? Does it depend on whether reliable sources recognize any of those indie releases? Is there any universally applicable criteria that can be applied or does it need to be examined individually? Some assistance would be appreciated.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Hello, I just noticed there's no article about the Al Jarreau album 'look to the rainbow' instead that phrase is redirected to the Astrud Gilberto album. Due to the album is one of my alltime favourites I'd really like to see an article on it - I would even try to make one on my own. However it will take me a while to collect facts and edit the page.
In the meantime I wonder if anyone's allready working on it. Is there a list of album articles that are under construction somewhere?
Btw I tried before to bring the Slickaphonics into discussion but unfortunately they are neither published on a major label nor have they ever been in any charts as far as I can see. 'Look to the Rainbow' was published by Warner and is been ranked so it should meet the guidelines for an article (1977: Look to the Rainbow (Warner Bros. Records) – US# 49, R&B# 19, Jazz# 5) Al Jarreau#Live albums
btw. I got a nice reply to my words about the Slickaphonics but didn't find a way to answer to that. Is that answering feature only for moderators or am I just blind? Is it by editing the page? I wouldn't dare to change anotherones article without beeing absolutely sure what I'm doing. P.S. I just tried to figure out by opening the above article and after leaving without saving I found the above text in that article - I have no idea how that happened and have now removed it . I hope I didn't make a mess. If so I apologise ... :\
Mli63 ( talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I now submitted the article for review. Mli63 ( talk) 09:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I found articles that could help - now looking if I can find them online - any suggestions?
(from
http://www.jazzinstitut.de/Jazzindex/Jarreau_Al.pdf)
Lee Underwood: Profile. Al Jarreau, in: Down Beat, 43/16 (7.Oct.1976), p. 37-38 (F/I)
"Gilmore": Al Jarreau – "Look to the Rainbow", in: Down Beat, 44/16 (1977), p. 24 (R)
Joachim Ernst Berendt: Al Jarreau. A Ritual from the Throat, in: Jazz Forum, #49 (1977), p. 34-36 (F/I)
Joachim Ernst Berendt: Al Jarreau. Das Ritual aus der Kehle, in: Jazz Forum, #49 (1977), p. 35-37 (F/I)
Francis Hofstein: En Direct. Al Jarreau, in: Jazz Magazine, #252 (Feb/Mar.1977), p. 6 (C)
Leonard Feather: Report from Hollywood. Glowing Jarreau, in: Melody Maker, 28.May 1977, p. 55
Lee Underwood: Al Jarreau. The Amazing Acrobat of Scat, in: Down Beat, 45/6 (23.Mar.1978), p. 15-16,37-39 (F/I)
... what have I started? *sigh* ;) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mli63 (
talk •
contribs)
19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Mli63: At Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources it says, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.... When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.... In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited." — Mudwater ( Talk) 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
That was fun ... :) Thanks for the quick review and thank you all very much for your support. There's one thing left for the moment. Shouldn't the title be Look to the Rainbow (Al Jarreau album)? And looking for 'Look to the Rainbow' still redirects to Astrud Gilberto. But I guess that's just some DB update issues. Again thanks a lot!! Mli63 ( talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks Mli63, and thanks to everyone who helped with this. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Richhoncho, I was saying there was not a need to disambiguate that much. The album is the primary topic, and shouldn't need to be disambiguated further. (Also, it's MrMoustacheMM).
MrMoustacheMM (
talk)
22:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm still quite sure that, in general, an album can be a primary topic, and therefore not have a disambiguated title. That said, most editors who have commented here are not convinced that the Al Jarreau album is the primary topic, and even I think that there is room for argument on that point. I'm now feeling ambivalent about whether the title should be disambiguated or not. So feel free to consider me neutral on this question. — Mudwater ( Talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
if I may again (as I'm 'guilty' of this): I'd feel more comfortable if it was 'Look to the Rainbow (Al Jarreau album)' for a simple reason. I believe Al jarreau wouldn't want to be put 'on top' of Astrud Gilberto and vice versa. So if there are two albums with the same name they should be treated equaly. Chart action does not make one music more important than the other. Just my 2 Pfennig. Regards Mli63 ( talk) 17:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
AS there was no objection, I have moved without a RM. A disambiguation page is now at Look to the Rainbow. I have made the necessary dabs. Improvements always welcome. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Can a song that was released solely for streaming, and/or free download, and/or one that is available for download immediately after completed a pre-order for an upcoming album, be considered a single? Or does it have to be available, even if for free, through a retailer such as iTunes or Amazon to qualify as a single? Many songs by Lecrae from his Gravity and Anomaly albums were released for free streaming and/or free download, and were touted by both his label and reliable sources (such as Billboard and MTV) as singles. Would these be technically singles or merely buzz singles?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me give an example: the promotional songs for Sleigh Bells' sophomore album Reign of Terror. This album only had one official single, " Comeback Kid." However, many of what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source will tell you that "Born to Lose" and "End of the Line" were also singles from this album, including: Consequence of Sound, Coup de Main, Jackson Guitars, MTV, Spin, Music Trajectory, Glamour, The Fader, Flavorwire, Stereogum, Pitchfork, Paste, Filter, Vulture, Consequence of Sound, Spin, CMJ, Rolling Stone, MTV, Exclaim! (some sources are listed twice, but they are different links for both songs). However, "End of the Line" was only released as a music video and "Born to Lose" was only released as a digital stream. Neither track was released independently of the album as a download (either free or for pay) nor was it released in a physical format. I've even checked eBay in case I missed the release of a limited-edition single, and multiple international iTunes and Amazon websites to see if they were released as singles outside of the US, and still no evidence that these two songs were ever released as a single. So now we're given a choice: Do we ignore the fact that these songs actually aren't singles and just go with what the sources say because reliable sources are the foundation of Wikipedia, or do we ignore what the sources say and accurately represent these songs as non-singles? We can't pick both options and there's no middle ground, so one of these items has to be ignored. I'd hope everyone here would be more in favor of the truth and an accurate representation of the information. Fezmar9 ( talk) 15:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added |Venue=
(for live albums) and |Studio=
(for studio albums; and the place where live albums are "finished") to {{
Infobox album}}. This removes the need to shoe-horn such data into |Recorded=
(or we could also create |recorded_date=
, and deprecate the existing parameter). This improves
data granularity.
I've also
proposed an equivalent property to |Studio=
, for Wikidata (which already has
P766 "event location" for live albums).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
|Venue=
. Or you can leave the parameter blank, just as (at the time of writing) the current infoboxes have no venue listed as part of |recorded=
. Or use |Venue=Various
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Hello. An editor and I have hit a stand still in an article related to this project regarding genre. Could some editors weight in on it here please? thank you! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 00:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej ( talk) 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No Ripcord is linked from nearly 200 pages, mostly in the review infoboxes on album articles, but the page has been deleted in the past. Should this have an article? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
A Big Cheese (magazine) review was added to the template in The Blackest Beautiful article. It appears to be a print-publication but is not featured in the reliable sources list. Is it actually reliable? Should we add it to the list or not?
Also, the article for Rock Hard (magazine) was deleted yesterday citing its lack of secondary sources and notability. Would this affect its reliability, since it is also featured on the list? Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 19:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's quite possible this isn't the right place to ask this. If so, sorry.
I constantly see the construction "upon its release" in articles about songs and albums (not to mention other forms of entertainment like movies). For example: "Upon its release, the album received positive reviews from critics." I've never seen a case where this has been useful information: who cares when the thing was reviewed? Music isn't typically reviewed before it's released or at least finished.
Is there somewhere this can be written down as a bit of guidance? It's such a petty complaint but the term's ubiquity drives me mad. Popcornduff ( talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War, about how the songs in a track listing should be numbered. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater ( Talk) 13:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The article for Splinter by The Offspring is their first album to have the label on the cover. Is the article's statement accurate? Is the label actually on the cover art, or is it a removable sticker like it is on their two later studio albums? Does anyone know? 173.51.130.250 ( talk) 05:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It has come to my attention the second album by Australian indie band Cloud Control has no page on Wikipedia. This band is fairly significant in the Australian indie music scene and was nominated for a number of awards in 2013 including the highly coverted J Award. It seems to me that the band has been around long enough and the album was popular enough to warrant a page on this website.
I would be more than happy to assist with the page and apply my knowledge of the band/album, but I have only recently joined Wikipedia as a user and will need some assistance from someone who knows what they are doing. But I believed that this would be a great place for me to start!
Please reply here or on my talk page if you are interested in helping me develop the page. I love Australian alternative music so I would have no problems retrieving the info!!
Thanks - Hori.horizontal ( talk) 06:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC) - THERE IS NO SPOON
This is a notice about Category:Albums articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we use Perfect Sound Forever (magazine) as a reliable source? The creator of the site Jason Gross has written as a freelance writer for various outputs: Village Voice (from 1998 to 2013), PopMatters (2005-2013) Red Bull Music Academy, Time Out, Spin (2006-2010), The Wire, Relix. etc. (more sources here).
The site was also used in several published books on musicians such as Rock 'til You Drop: The Decline from Rebellion to Nostalgia (published by Verso), The Story of Crass (published by Omnibus Press), and Recombo DNA: The Story of Devo, or How the '60s Became the '80s (published by Hal Leonard Corporation), just to name a few.
Gross' work is referenced through RocksBackPages, notably the large amount of interviews he's done over the years.
So is this site a yay or a nay? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The credentials of that site are VERY impressive. I'd say, absolutely it's a reliable source. Interviews are statements by the band members, so they would automatically be reliable per WP:SPS anyway.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for some guidance/consensus on how to provide infobox categories (ie. "live album"/"studio album" for an album that is
DISEman ( talk) 01:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Many supposedly live albums are actually re-recorded in the studio, to a greater or lesser extent, with some having only crowd sounds from the original concert. Conversely, some bands perform concerts, with an audience, in a recording- or television- studio, and record and release those without (much) overdubbing. Good luck sorting that lot out! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Albums articles that would be affected by this action are these:
If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Albums' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,the large-scale content removal, particularly by Footballfan49, seems to be vandalism but I don't have the topic knowledge to judge how far back down the history to revert to. Can you help, please? Just Chilling ( talk) 20:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies if this has been covered/discussed to death before, but I'm new here. I'd be curious to know the reason why, when I'm looking at the yearly pages of album releases, "debut albums" are not included. I understand the usefulness of a debut albums category, though I would consider "debut albums" a subset of "albums". What is the thinking behind not assigning debut albums both categories? Or perhaps more to the point--is someone going to undo my changes if I add the album by year category to pages for debut albums? Caseyroberson ( talk) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I read some discussion about Robert Christgau's reviews, which is what made me ask this question: is there a guideline for which albums can link to which reviews? The Robert Christgau case is an interesting one because people often give "the review is written by Robert Christgau!" as a reason to include his reviews. To me, this seems similar to an Argument from authority, which is commonly considered a logical fallacy if it is not supported by additional arguments. Similarly, I (a completely unknown reviewer) might write a brilliant album review, but this would probably be rejected on similar grounds. While I don't mind this personally (I am not planning to get into album reviewing anyway), I do think this is a bit of a problem. Is a review's author the only selection criterion that we currently use, or is there more to it? If the former, is this something that can be changed, or are there reasons for this that I am not aware of? Arno Sluismans ( talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposed; discuss there by clicking above. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Can cited quotes come from articles (from reliable sources) that are not on an album, but do give a brief review of the album? And does a review need to be contemporary to be cited? -- Lpdte77 ( talk) 06:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move is discussed; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Page move requested; discuss there. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Superdrag's Señorita EP was released first as two separate 7" records in 1994. The records were re-released as a CD in 1999. All of which were on Darla. Not sure how to cite this other than being alive and owning the physical copies. I can scan them if necessary. Just thought someone might want to fix this error. Thanks, --Eric Schultz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericapnea ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Does an album need to meet each of the 7 criteria presented at WP:NALBUMS for it to be notable? -- Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just making some discussion to see whether or not Sea of Tranquility should be used as a source or not. It appears it was a print magazine at one point if that helps: FAQ page here. Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sea of Tranquility is a well respected progressive rock magazine, an authority on the genre. It is a very reliable source. 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There is evidence of Sea of Tranquility being a reliable source. There is no evidence of Mudvayne being a nu-metal band. 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 01:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
PopMatters has featured contributions by one of Sea of Tranquility's writers: [4] "Jordan Blum holds an MFA in Creative Writing and is the founder/Editor-in-Chief of an online literary/multimedia journal called The Bookends Review. He specializes in progressive rock and also writes for Delusions of Adequacy, Examiner, and Sea of Tranquility" 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
More citations of Sea of Tranquility here: [5] [6] [7] [8] 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 22:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, by whose standards is this not a reliable source? The magazine is frequently cited by prog/hard rock/metal fans and bands. 63.155.164.33 ( talk) 03:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking over this discussion, and I see very little addressing the reliability of Sea of Tranquility. What there is mostly discussion of is its notability, which can help determine reliability, but is not crucial. A source can be reliable without being notable. There are thousands of academic books that would never warrant an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that they aren't reliable. Here is the definition of a reliable source for Wikipedia: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WikiProject Albums has an additional guideline: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." So, how does Sea of Tranquility hold up? It has an editorial and writing staff, is published by a third-party (i.e., the writers themselves do not publish the content), and, though not essential for reliability standards, it was formerly a print magazine. The only sticky part is how do we determine a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Mentions by other sources do not translate into a reputation for accuracy. A reputation for accuracy translates into a reputation for accuracy. The best determiner of that would be people who know of the publication and can speak to its reputation and accuracy. Now, if you want mentions in other sources, in order to help determine its influence and impact, there are two books which cite the publication: Alice in Chains: In the Studio (page unknown) and Rammstein on Fire: New Perspectives on the Music and Performances, page 87. So far, I'm seeing a case for this publication being reliable. A note to the IP above though: Piero Scaruffi has been determined not to be a reliable source on Wikipedia, except for his reviews and articles that were published by a third party.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing that might be relevant is that Batmura was spamming Sea of Tranquility references across a ton of articles, especially using refs that were written by Sea of Tranquility staff writer Murat Batmaz. [9] [10] Batmura was doing this in 2011 and 2014. This conflict-of-interest promotion should not have diminished the authority of Sea of Tranquility but it did increase my vigilance and cynicism. Binksternet ( talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add Classic Rock magazine to the list of sources. This 2010 Guardian piece reports it as one of the UK's best-selling music magazines. Looking at the October 2014 issue and one I've dug up from June 2010, the album reviewers include Charles Shaar Murray, David Quantick and David Stubbs, along with a host of names I recognise from UK mags such as Mojo, Record Collector, Uncut and Q: Terry Staunton, Paul Moody, Neil Jeffries, Gavin Martin, Paul Sexton, Kris Needs. Many of the magazine's reviews are available online; although, from the ones I've checked, I notice that the 10-point rating/score from the print magazine isn't reproduced with the online review. JG66 ( talk) 11:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. I've just added the magazine to the list of sources. Cheers, JG66 ( talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether Acclaimed Music is an acceptable source to support mention of an album or song's inclusion/position in critics' best-of polls and lists? The website's not great, in that it's impossible to provide a direct link to a particular album or even a year. But click on a particular year, then an album or a song, and details are provided of a work's inclusion in a lot of interesting (and notable) lists … Any thoughts? JG66 ( talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that individual pages can be located by album and song through a google search (i.e., [album/song title] + Acclaimed Music). There are a few album articles for which I'd like to use Acclaimed as the source for positions on critics' lists and/or reviewer ratings – Layla and All Things Must Pass, for example. So, if anyone's got any objections, I'd obviously rather hear them now(!). JG66 ( talk) 08:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Been meaning to raise this for a while. Starting with the April 2012 issue, Uncut changed its rating system from stars (max. five) to scores out of ten ( this from a RateYourMusic user). Online though, Uncut's site reproduces pre-April '12 reviews mixing the two systems; in other words, an album that originally received 5 out of 5 stars ends up with a numerical score of 5 out of 10. It's most noticeable when a work that was the mag's Album of the Year receives an apparently average rating online of 5/10. Another example is Bowie's Reality (2003), the online review for which carries a 4/10 rating, whereas – and the quote beginning "While it's very much a rock album …" is common to both – Metacritic records the mag's 2003 review as 80 (= 4/5). Or take Clapton's Me and Mr. Johnson: Uncut gave it 4 stars out of 5 in 2004, according to the Muze-created product description at CD Universe, or 80 again at Metacritic; online at uncut.co.uk, it's rendered as 4/10. (Again, there's a quote common to all those sources: "at 58, he sounds like a man …")
So, while adding a specific date at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES for when the magazine crossed over to its new rating system might be welcome, I wonder whether it might be an idea to also add something that comments on this discrepancy. Reason being, there are hundreds (thousands?) of album reviews available at uncut.co.uk, but their usefulness is compromised, from the point of view of including a rating, at least. Any thoughts? JG66 ( talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks everyone. I took a stab at dealing with this on the Sources page. Just thinking though, it would be better to also advise editors to add an explanation in what I've been referring to as "buried text". (And perhaps remove mention of gaining consensus? – I wouldn't want to encourage that each and every instance lead to a debate. Wouldn't want to discourage discussion either, of course …) So does anyone know the correct term for this type of text, the "buried text"? JG66 ( talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Just reworded to include mention of hidden text as a place for explanation in the album article. (Wordy or what?!) If anyone has a better idea about how to address this on the WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES page, please discuss and/or go for it. Perhaps a link to this talk page discussion might allow for cutting down what's needed there? Not sure … JG66 ( talk) 10:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As more artists are spending a considerable amount of time in an indie and self-promoted marketplace, I'd like some ideas on how to list album articles.
If an artist releases an independent album or two and then gets signed to a major label, does that major label release become the artist's debut album or first album or is it their second or third release? Does it depend on the sources? Does it depend on sales of those indie releases? Does it depend on whether reliable sources recognize any of those indie releases? Is there any universally applicable criteria that can be applied or does it need to be examined individually? Some assistance would be appreciated.