Wikipedia:Peer review/Jazz drumming/archive1

Jazz drumming

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

I listed this article for peer review because it was failed as a good article recently, and I have done my best to improve it; both according to the reviewer's suggestions and in what areas I thought improvement would be useful. Suggestions I am looking for:

Terms to be clarified (one of the reviewer's comments was that the article contained too much jargon)
Content (anything that needs more information?)
Media usage (are there any pictures or sound samples that would be useful?)

Thanks,

Kakofonous (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alan W

One thing comes to mind in reading the last section, "Free Jazz". You say 'It seems that the evolution of jazz drumming has much to do with progressively “freeing” the beat....' This is a really major new idea being introduced at the end (at least it reads like that; I know you talk about freeing the beat in the previous section), and I think that it would need much more expansion and support with citations than it gets. Can you find support for this idea in any references? You may think that this is true, and maybe it is, but remember, in Wikipedia articles, just stating what you believe is true isn't sufficient. You do cite the interview by Clifford Allen with Sunny Murray, but your claim is a pretty all-embracing one, more, it seems to me, than is really supported by Murray's account of the concepts behind his own drumming.

You know, maybe the solution is simpler than that. At least it would be if you remove the broader claim from that section, and simply state that in "Free Jazz" there was a movement to free the beat even more than what you describe in the previous section, "1950s and 1960s". That way you avoid having to support what seems here like a major new thesis of your own. --Alan W (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I think) Kakofonous (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And certainly an improvement (I think). --Alan W (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Clave rhythm--while I find it all very interesting, it is very dense, and, yes, a little technical, though I hope others are not averse to learning. I certainly learned something. I added a "Main article" tag, by the way, though I think that in some ways your coverage is more thorough that what is in Clave (rhythm) (which you might want to look at and even add to). It doesn't say anything about an African clave. Should it? Well, first things first, I suppose.

As a novice in this area, I will note, for perspective, that when I saw the word "clave" I immediately thought of the instrument, the claves. I'm wondering if somehow you could briefly, maybe parenthetically or even in a note, mention that the "clave" you are discussing is the rhythm, not the instrument (which even the least technically knowledgeable lover of Latin music will have heard of), although the instrument is used to play the rhythm.

The list of influential drummers you recently added: While that's nice, just calling it a list of "influential jazz drummers" without qualification I find confusing. I was about to add three more whose omission I couldn't understand (Baby Dodds, Jo Jones, and Philly Joe Jones) until it dawned on me that the list is really of some whom you consider influential but who are not mentioned above in the article itself. I'm wondering if you might somehow make that point (subheading? note? I'm not sure). I did add Philly Joe Jones, as I am always seeing his name cited as an influence on other drummers, and he is not mentioned elsewhere. (I tend to be an "inclusionist," so I didn't remove any names, but is Dannie Richmond really considered that influential? I'm not saying there was anything wrong with his playing; he was certainly very good, at least I think so; but is he really considered a major influence on anyone else?)

I removed Dannie Richmond and renamed the title of the section to a less citation-needing name. I don't know if it is necessary to mention the fact that these are drummers not mentioned in the article, as See also sections are assumed to follow that logic (see Wikipedia:Layout#See also). Kakofonous (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and with this lessened emphasis it's easier to look at the section in its "see also" aspect. --Alan W (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I can think of now, though I know that there is more that can be done here. You might consider breaking up some long sentences to make some of the technical stuff a little easier to digest. I'll see what else I can think of. I think I will just go in myself and tighten up some phrasing here and there. No technical knowledge of drumming required for that! --Alan W (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uneasy about your reliance on the Ed Pias article. I see Pias is a drummer himself, and he may be a good one, but some of his judgments about the history of drumming seem to me to be on a shaky footing. He seems to know what he is talking about with respect to the more recent, freer drummers, but when he characterizes the older ones, some of what he says seems way off. Baby Dodds was squarely in the old New Orleans tradition and in no way a swing or big-band drummer. Big Sid Catlett was a great influence on later drummers and perhaps helped to pave the way for bebop drumming; but I sure wouldn't lump him with the "bebop or hard-bop" drummers as Pias does. I think this slapdash and incorrect characterization leaks into what you say when you call Catlett an "influential drummer of bebop". I think it would be more correct to call him influential *on* some of the beboppers rather than "of" that movement itself. --Alan W (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence bothers me: "Due to the necessity of a different method of playing percussion in the early developmental era of jazz, jazz drumming was invented." First, the grammatical structure is not really correct; "due to" is not the equivalent of "because of", though I grant that this is such a common mistake that it has almost been legitimized. Secondly, the passive voice at the end makes the sentence weak. But I think the most serious problem here is that you beg the question of the necessity. Why was it necessary to play percussion differently in jazz? Of course this is only the introduction, and you can't say much, but you might give more of a hint than you do. Even later in the article, I don't think that this necessity emerges clearly. Also--different from what? Percussion in European classical music? In popular dance music? In marching bands? Or...? I know this might not be easy to express concisely, so complex is the subject. If I could think of a way to revise this sentence now, I'd do it myself! --Alan W (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the problematic sentence to "Jazz required a method of playing percussion different from traditional European styles, one that was easily adaptable to the different musical situations that appeared in this new genre, fostering the creation of jazz drumming's hybrid technique." This seemed less vague and (hopefully) more understandable. One of the reasons I requested this peer review was that I do tend to write in a rather dense style, and it is gratifying to find someone willing to go through and catch all those sentences. Kakofonous (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. I've edited the sentence a little more. I think what I did fits in with what you say later in the paragraph. Glad I can be of help. I'll go through more, time permitting. --Alan W (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tightened up the lead (or "lede", as the old-time journalists call it) quite a bit. If I've left out anything crucial you can always add it back. You've brought in a lot of very good essential material later in the article; but too much of those first few paragraphs was repetitious and vague. E.g., paragraph 3, sentence 1, as it was, read, "The style could have begun at a number of different times...." What style? We're talking about many styles in the evolution of the music. And I couldn't grasp exactly what that sentence was supposed to mean at all.

The more I think about this article, my feeling is that the ideas behind the bulk of it are sound, and you generally cite good references to back up what you say. But, really, this topic is huge. It may be that you've bitten off a bit more than either of us can chew. As much as there is, I think more needs to be said about certain contributory components, such as the invention of new cymbals and other parts of the drum set. And there should be more coverage in other areas, probably, that my lack of technical knowledge prevents me from adding. A third, fourth, and even fifth opinion would really help with this article. --Alan W (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely correct about the need for more information in the drum set area. When I was originally taking notes for this article (actually a research paper for school) I was bogged down by the enormous amount of information I found, and focused instead on the areas that seemed essential. I will write up some more content in that section of the article at some point. (Not making promises as to when, but probably sometime soon.) Kakofonous (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with getting more opinions on this article is that there are so very few here that might be able to provide one that was informed! (And which users they are I have no idea.) There might be some people I know off-wiki that could provide some constructive comments, though. Kakofonous (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]