Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sly & the Family Stone
Self nomination. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was shocked and appalled that one of the most important bands in American music history did not have an article (Sly Stone had an article, and the band information was tucked into it). --FuriousFreddy 22:57 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Question: the band was certainly multiethnic, but in what sense were they (as the lead paragaph calls them) "multicultural"? -- Jmabel | Talk
- There's at least three distinct cultures in the band (African-American, Italian-American, and Caucasian American). All of the members are American, but they still came from three different cultural backgrounds (even if all the members were the same ethnicity, they could still come from differnet cultures; i.e. Southern U.S. blacks and West Indians. In addition, the band's sound is a blending of differnt forms of musical expression (rock music, soul music, gospel music), which are each distinct to seperate cultures. An example of the usage of "multicultural" to describe them is scene in this professional review here ([1]). Also, "multicultural" helps summarize the fact that the band was both multiethnic and co-ed as well. I'm not married to the term, though; if there is consensus it should be changed, it will be. --FuriousFreddy 03:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Though there are some colloqial expressions which I think will be difficult for many readers, and should if possible be replaced. Also, perhaps clarify "falltein' me be mice elf agin." It could also use a copyedit, as there is some minor bias from an informal tone or approach, e.g., "managed to be pop-friendly enough to be released as singles" (was) and "was still unable to return" (still did not). And clarify opinion holders on "The album was underwhelming both critically and commercially." Overall very nice though, I think. 119 06:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Will take care of it. Which colloquial expressions did you mean though (the rest, I understand)? I know I referred to Sly Stone as "Sly" and not "Stone"; but that was because I have four persons with that last name to discuss in this article.--FuriousFreddy 15:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Done. --FuriousFreddy 03:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Will take care of it. Which colloquial expressions did you mean though (the rest, I understand)? I know I referred to Sly Stone as "Sly" and not "Stone"; but that was because I have four persons with that last name to discuss in this article.--FuriousFreddy 15:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - haven't yet read it fully but it looks to be an interesting read about a great band. One thing I think could be mentioned in the influences section is the influence on jazz - in particular, in the sleevenotes to 'Headhunters', Herbie Hancock describes having a vision of himself playing with Sly, which inspired him to move to an electronic funk sound. Headhunters ended up being the biggest selling jazz album of all time, and Hancock is renowned as one of the great innovators. Worldtraveller 16:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Adding it now. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 17:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've read it properly now and I think it's a fine article. I'd like to support but a couple of things may need fixing - first, the intro is a bit long, perhaps, and second, there are two sections which discuss the band's influence on later music. It might make more sense to combine these sections. Worldtraveller 18:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I can shorten the intro. As for the seperate influences sections, that was done on purpose because the Family Stone had two completely different styles of music (the psycyhedelic rock/pop of the 1960s and the more sedate, drug-laced funk of the 1970s), each of those eras had a completely different influence on the music industry. The 1960s era Family Stone introduced psychedelic rock to soul music, leading to the psychedelic soul era of the late-1960s. The 1970s group, in many ways a completely different band even though 5/7 of the lineup was the same, was one of the first major funk music acts. In addition, those two sections are seperated so that they read chronologically (meaning, when the article discusses Dance to the Music, for the sake of readibility, it should discuss the impact of that album and era (psychedelic soul). Then, when it discusses There's a Riot Goin' On and Fresh, it should discuss the impact of the early funk music output of the band at that time. --FuriousFreddy 21:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Intro looks excellent now. I'm very close to supporting this article. Small questions though, shouldn't it read 'Sly & the Family Stone were...' rather than was? Regarding the two influence sections, I think their purpose and the band's changing sound could be made clearer to the reader by changing the section headings, perhaps to 'Philosophies and influence of the early years' and 'Internal problems and a change of direction'. Also I think 'later' could replace 'latter-day', and I think the 'Dissolution' section could come before the second influences section. Worldtraveller 16:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Will do it right now. --FuriousFreddy 17:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Done. --FuriousFreddy 18:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good work - I'll support now. Worldtraveller 11:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Done. --FuriousFreddy 18:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Will do it right now. --FuriousFreddy 17:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Intro looks excellent now. I'm very close to supporting this article. Small questions though, shouldn't it read 'Sly & the Family Stone were...' rather than was? Regarding the two influence sections, I think their purpose and the band's changing sound could be made clearer to the reader by changing the section headings, perhaps to 'Philosophies and influence of the early years' and 'Internal problems and a change of direction'. Also I think 'later' could replace 'latter-day', and I think the 'Dissolution' section could come before the second influences section. Worldtraveller 16:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I can shorten the intro. As for the seperate influences sections, that was done on purpose because the Family Stone had two completely different styles of music (the psycyhedelic rock/pop of the 1960s and the more sedate, drug-laced funk of the 1970s), each of those eras had a completely different influence on the music industry. The 1960s era Family Stone introduced psychedelic rock to soul music, leading to the psychedelic soul era of the late-1960s. The 1970s group, in many ways a completely different band even though 5/7 of the lineup was the same, was one of the first major funk music acts. In addition, those two sections are seperated so that they read chronologically (meaning, when the article discusses Dance to the Music, for the sake of readibility, it should discuss the impact of that album and era (psychedelic soul). Then, when it discusses There's a Riot Goin' On and Fresh, it should discuss the impact of the early funk music output of the band at that time. --FuriousFreddy 21:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've read it properly now and I think it's a fine article. I'd like to support but a couple of things may need fixing - first, the intro is a bit long, perhaps, and second, there are two sections which discuss the band's influence on later music. It might make more sense to combine these sections. Worldtraveller 18:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Adding it now. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 17:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support! I haven't read it since my initial glance, when I saw a few strictly copy editing issues, but it's a thorough and engrossing piece with great photos (and I'm diggin' the psychedelic band logo). I agree with Worldtraveller about S&TFS's influence on jazz (back and the day when Herbie was tryin' to be more "relevant" and briefly called himself "Mwandishi" :p), so I'm glad Furious is taking care of that. Well done. deeceevoice 14:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ObjectI think we may be pushing the edge of legality with that many 30 second audio samples.If someone authoritatively can state thats not an issuethis is a support. ALKIVAR™ 19:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)- How many should there be? I will remove the excess numbers and leave only the most important ones. --FuriousFreddy 20:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I dont know what the limit to a fair use claim would be, nor do I know the length limitations. I do know however samples of as short as 1 second have been cause of lawsuits. Hence why I said authoritatively, it would require someone with legal expertice to clarify. I've already faced a P2P lawsuit from the RIAA (it got thrown out), so perhaps i'm just a bit jumpy. ALKIVAR™
21:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I removed everything except the major hits, which left eight songs. How is that? I really couldn't fathom deleting any of the ones that are left. When I did the article on The Supremes, moderator TUF-KAT had me put the samples at thirty seconds each. I was just doing the same here. --FuriousFreddy 21:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well if thats what the "standard" is theres probably a reason for it. ALKIVAR™ 22:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well if thats what the "standard" is theres probably a reason for it. ALKIVAR™
- Well, I removed everything except the major hits, which left eight songs. How is that? I really couldn't fathom deleting any of the ones that are left. When I did the article on The Supremes, moderator TUF-KAT had me put the samples at thirty seconds each. I was just doing the same here. --FuriousFreddy 21:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I dont know what the limit to a fair use claim would be, nor do I know the length limitations. I do know however samples of as short as 1 second have been cause of lawsuits. Hence why I said authoritatively, it would require someone with legal expertice to clarify. I've already faced a P2P lawsuit from the RIAA (it got thrown out), so perhaps i'm just a bit jumpy. ALKIVAR™
- How many should there be? I will remove the excess numbers and leave only the most important ones. --FuriousFreddy 20:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support this comprehensive and well-structured article. Jgm 12:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
