Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pod (The Breeders album)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Pod (The Breeders album)

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This is about the 1990 debut album by the group the Breeders. I'd be really grateful for all comments to improve the article in preparation for FAC.

Several of my sources (including Aston, Lamacq, Mico, Reynolds, and others) are offline, but I'd be very happy to e-mail scans of any of them to interested reviewers. Also, Frank is online though I'm not sure if all the pages are still accessible, but if they aren't I have them printed out and could scan them too.

PS Has anyone seen Poltergeist? I don't think I ever have but it's of course famous and I'm aware of the general premise. But does the sentence about the blood dribbling from the girl's mouth sound right—it's the main character girl on the poster? I'm just relying on my interpretation of the source and my general knowledge of the film.

Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really remember Poltergeist, but the same trope was definitely used in The Exorcist. Which doesn't preclude it from being used more than once of course—that's what makes it a trope  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Excellent stuff. Some suggested tweaks;

  • They recorded a country-influenced demo with musicians including violinist Carrie Bradley and bassist Ray Holiday in 1989. 4AD cofounder Ivo Watts-Russell funded the album recording. - There is a gap in sequence here. If memory serves, it was dance music, country demo, safari demo (then 4AD got interested), then POD. Article lead currently skips quite a lot, although at my advanced age, my recall may be faulty.
  • Let me know if you find a source about the sequence of the Safari demo or other important details. I'm happy to take into account such details as they may come up in sources I'm unaware of. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excited by the demo, 4AD cofounder Ivo Watts-Russell funded the album recording - excited by the demo could go; maybe leave Ivo's reaction for the article body and just say here The recording was funded by Ivo Watts-Russell's "4AD" - also the label was a one man show no, esp by then? Also "album's recording". Further, there are two very different reasons a label head might be excited by a demo; we need to make clear here where Ivo was coming from.
  • Albini helped the band work quickly - encouraged? Either way "helped" isn't right
  • and dark and sexual lyrics, and compared - too many "and"s as Albini might say. Maybe "dark, sexual lyrics, and compared it"
  • and compared it to Deal's work with the Pixies - compared it favorably
  • Pod's cover, designed by - "Pod's cover was designed by Vaughan Oliver and photographed by Kevin Westerberg. It depicts Oliver..."
  • </>—the hometown of both groups[5]—', would use commas rather than dashes, "hometown" rather than "the hometown"
  • Deal and Donelly spent time playing guitar and drinking,[3] and shared musical ideas. - for flow: "Deal and Donelly spent time playing guitar, drinking,[3] and sharing musical ideas.
  • that would consist of Deal on bass, Donelly on guitar - "consisting of Deal on bass"...(rather than "that would")
  • ....eventually decided that their dance music concept was not working well - "dance music concept" is not quite hitting the nail on the head
  • contractually Deal and Donelly could not both be the main songwriters for their joint project - I understand, but needs simplification for those not familiar with the arcania of recording and publishing contracts
  • I haven't found a solution for this yet but want to still try. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, I've been mulling this since you first brought it up, and I confess I don't know what to do with it. The sentence does seem crystal clear to me—but it's possible as you say that this is because you and I have some knowledge of the music industry. But even if as you say people without knowledge of such things may not follow, I confess I have no idea of what additional info or clarification to add. There are no further details in the source to add, and I don't want to add further explanations without a basis in a source. Possibly I could try to do an Internet search to see if I stumble on a succinct explanation of the same situation, but I'm not very optimistic I'd be successful. Would you be willing to let this concern go, or do you have a better idea of how to approach it? If you do, I'm certainly open to whatever ideas. Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just mention restrictions on their respective publishing contracts - to distinguish from recording contracts. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was the bassist of the Pixies, she wanted to play guitar for the Breeders, feeling it was an easier instrument to play when singing - "with" the Pixies, are they not just "Pixies" with no "the" (dunno, but always presumed), "while singing".
  • The band sometimes recorded wearing their pajamas, and sometimes - drop one of the "sometimes" for a word like "often", or just "would"
  • with the remaining time, the Breeders recorded a John Peel session, and a television crew filmed a video of the band - "[Full stop]. During the reaming time they recorded...
  • Albini focused on "live performances and quick takes" - "sought to achieve a sound that resembled"; also no need for the quote here, should be easily paraphrased as its a decades long mantra of his. What is a "quick" take - a take is a take.
  • Albini considered it a good enough take good for the album - "Albini considered it good enough for the album".
  • Some sentences are rather stubby and break flow, eg..."According to Wiggs, Albini's "hands-off" style helped shape the recordings.[29] Also note the apparent contradiction between "hands off" and "helped shaped" - its not quite right. He was hands off in composition (production) but instrumental as an engineer and his stamp dominates the records sound. PS this slow burner is my most favourite of his "recordings"[1] Note the roomy drums vs. the very precise guitar sound.
  • Ceoil, does this edit help [[2]]? It was partly in response to your comment, and partly because I wasn't really sure purpose the Wiggs sentence had in the flow of ideas in its previous position, although it seems like a useful detail to include. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albini felt that Walford's drum performance was an important part of the album - "Albini viewed Walford's performance as an integral...". Try and avoid the next sentence beginning with "Walford" to break repetition.
  • Now reads "Albini felt that Walford's drumming was an important part of the album's appeal", which I believe you had a hand in contributing to the edits that got it there. Let me know if it still needs work, thx—happy to work on it more. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • powerful drummer - there are better technical terms than this. Here in Ireland "powerful" means "mighty".
  • Deal could not keep her breath long enough to slow down each note - I dont know what this means
  • The Breeders covered the Lennon–McCartney composition "Happiness is a Warm Gun" at the suggestion of Watts-Russell.[19][31]. This is tacked on at the end of its paragraph and would sit better else where (will get to structure after the copy-editing bit)
  • 'recurring sexual dream that he told Deal about - drop "that he told Deal about", or if its germane - ie Deal wrote the track - phrase more eloquently
  • Now reads "A recurring sexual dream of Walford's is the subject of "Opened"." Don't remember for sure who made this edit, may or may not have been you, but in any case, is it better now? By the way, I hope you don't mind me going through this list one by one, even though you are crossing things out on your own and may already be keeping track of which issues you think are resolved and may not need me "reminding" you. This process is also to help myself so I can work the way through the list and take a guess at which ones most likely still need the most attention, so I can try to be proactive in tackling these. Moisejp (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another motivation was his attempt to charm Kim Deal, and speak to her sense of humor, as he had become enamored with her - could be better for several reasons - can u rephrase "Another motivation", "and speak to her", "as he had" and not use the word "enamored". I know the story, suggest a rewrite with a different source that makes him sound less...dunno.
  • You edited this, and Wehwalt didn't like the word "woo" so I changed it to "romantic attention" (not sure if it is an improvement or not, it was the best I could think of). I also removed the bananas bit because I couldn't find mention of that in any sources. It now reads "Oliver, in an attempt to get romantic attention from Deal, whom he believed would appreciate the humor, attached a belt of dead eels over his underwear, which he intended to resemble phallics." Moisejp (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but in Aston she also says "and it's a good word". And two thirds down the left-hand column of p. 30 of Mico there's a section with various people's speculation about the title, the authoritative being Kim who says Albini's theory is wrong and that "it's supposed to be kinda like a uterus." I think we should add the last bit (I will) and let me know if there's anyhting else in there you feel strongly should be added. (I also noticed there's some thematic overlap with how she explained "Iris"—where she even mentioned the word "pod"—but that is not explicitly said, so would be OR to make the connection.) Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deal has acknowledged a degree of perversity throughout the album, and that many of the songs concern sex - "a degree of perversity" or "throughout" are not ideal, and maybe "many of the songs are sexual in nature", no point in being coy.
  • just keeping it and just singing it intentionally unclearly, - "just keeping" it is slangy, "just" x 2, "unclearly" how; fudging the vocals, or mudging the meaning. as she could not think of a good alternate phrase to use - "a better alternative"?
  • I believe you and I have both edited this part since your comment. Now reads "Before recording, the other band members teased her about the line, but since she could not think of a better alternative, she kept the phrase but mumbled the line to make the words harder to understand." Is it good now? Moisejp (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several reviews compared Pod to Deal's work with the Pixies - Unsure about this - overall quality of songwriting, its production and sound, her bass playing specifically, or its popular reach? Would like to see some of the sources as its very a interesting point indeed
  • I just meant this to be a general catch-all where I could group the various comparisons between Pod and Pixies. I'm open to getting into more specifics if the possibility is there from the sources. Let me have a think about this. Also, now that you have access to the sources, if any ideas jump out at you, please feel free to edit accordingly.
  • Its an important point, and if you can finding anything would be very pleased. I often wonder what impact the Pixies would have made without Deal. Am pretty sure she wrote their basslines, which for me are 95% of the bands attraction. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you give too much weight to contemporary negative reviews; there is a bit of "on the one hand but on the other hand". Given the album is now an undisputed classic, its prob enough to say, some reviewers found it "bla", "bla" and "bla", and leave it at that. If these could be sourced to a unifying book source rather than individually to each journalist, all the better.
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm more hesitant than you to use word selection that paints it as an "undisputed classic", and would prefer for to go for a more restrained, balanced approach. Another consideration I had when doing this section was trying to structure it in a way that would satisfy WP:RECEPTION, by grouping similar ideas into their own paragraphs. That being said, I'm happy to revisit this with you and look at ways at juggling the balance of ideas in order to reach a middle ground between your vision and mine. Moisejp (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rough Guide to Rock is not a good source.
  • It seemed fine to me, but if you have reason to believe strongly that it's not, it wouldn't be impossible to remove. Currently Clifton is mentioned in two places (current ref 43), so we would have to remove that info. Moisejp (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foot notes 41, 56 & 66 have harv errors
  • Why does "He gave the band a budget of $11,000 to record an album.[2][15][16]" need three footnotes.
  • More later; I realise have left you with a lot here, but am hopeful for the article and will help more, rather than just raise suggestions, once have gotten properly to grips and re-submerged myself :)

Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, thank you so much for your edits and your suggestions! I'll have a bit of time this weekend, then I won't have maybe any time till the following weekend again, but I'll definitely get to your comments soon. I've scanned a bunch of sources and will send them to you today. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No rush! Ceoil (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the 18th Dye song you linked to. I had never heard of them before. Here's an Albini-engineered tune I love from an album that may or may not be well known in Ireland and may or not be your cup of tea: [[3]] Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good indeed; had been aware they were more than one hit wonders but not really paid attention. Anyway, looking forward to interacting on this article again Moisejp; the hard work is done and have full confidence you will get it through FAC. If your not unopposed to the gist of the above points; may take a shot at editing directly myself. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, UO are from Albini's home turf of Chicago. The Supersonic Storybook is one of their earlier albums (it's so good, one of these days I'd love to go crazy on its Wikipedia article), but they had a big falling out with him not long after and I think haven't worked with him since.

I don't disagree with the gist of any of your comments, and if you want to be bold and edit towards any of these ends, I would in no way object. Your and Popcornduff's edits have been extremely helpful. The only thing is I have a slight preference for "the Pixies" rather than just "Pixies" but if you have a strong opinion for the latter, that's cool too. I know all the arguments for both points of view. For me, things flow a little better with "the" and it has been pointed out that the group apparently informally refer to themselves with the "the" and there's even a compilation album called Death to the Pixies. But again, it's all good either way, it's mostly just important that the article be consistent with one usage or the other.

By the way, I sent you an e-mail via Wikipedia a couple of days ago—did you get it? Basically I said in the e-mail that I couldn't figure out how to attach any attachments to the Wikipedia e-mail form, but that if you reply to my e-mail, I can send the attachments (i.e., scans of my sources) normally from that. (But you also said "No rush" and if you saw the e-mail but would rather deal with getting the sources later, that's all good too.)

Cool, I've got a little window of time now and am going to start working away at some of your comments. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm sure you've heard the Pod demo, haven't you? [[4]] It has wonderful outtakes, including "Rave On", "You Always Hang Around", "Overcome". I've wanted to add more about the specific songs, etc. in the Pod article, but have never found any good reliable sources. I may try to have one more look before nominating for FAC. Here there's also a recording of the 1990 Peel session [[5]] (it says it was in January 1990—maybe this means their two weeks of recording at Palladium were not consecutive, as my May 1990 Melody maker source says Pod was recorded in Dec. 1989). If I can possibly find more info about the Peel session in a reliable source I would add more about it as well. Incidentally, you mentioned you thought the Safari demo was before 4AD getting interested. I haven't seen anything about that in any of my sources but if you know of a source that says so, by all means, I'd be happy to look into that.

One other point I need to tweak is the article currently says Pod was Cobain's favourite album, based on the 1992 Melody Maker article with him, but when re-reading my sources a couple of days ago I noticed Aston says according to Cobain's published diaries, an album by Iggy and the Stooges was Cobain's #1, and Pod was #2 or #3 with Surfer Rosa. (As can often happen, I guess his favourite album at the moment may have changed between 1992 and whenever that part of his diaries were written, or vice versa if the diary entry came earlier.) I'll have to find access to the Cobain diaries book to see exactly what is said, or see whether there's enough info in Aston to make a clear statement about all that. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re my edit about the embarrassing line from "Hellbound", the source says:
"The great thing about Kim is that even though she was embarrassed about it—and she was ridiculed by us about it—she still didn't change it," says Jo. "When Kim actually got round to singing it for the record, she backed away from the microphone and mumbled it a little so people couldn't work out what it was."
"I couldn't think of another line that scanned," Kim explains. Moisejp (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listening to "the Supersonic Storybook" for last 3 days. Oh man. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, Ceoil, I'm so glad you like The Supersonic Storybook. I remember the first time I heard it was c. 1991 in my friend's car and it blew me away. He said he got it after reading this [[6]] review that in his words "worshipped" the album. There was a decade or two in there where I didn't listen to it much, but lately I've been really back into it. I like the Stereolab and especially 18th dye (listening to it now) songs you linked to. Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pretty serious stuff. Fugazi mixed with MBV. Nobody but Albini could have gotten that sound. Supersonic Storybook has been on heavy rotation all weekend & shared on FB (have two brothers who are also serious albini heads). Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I've been exploring 18th Dye on Youtube when I've had a chance the last couple of weeks. The tunes I especially like include your two recommendations and "Go!Song". Looking forward to listening some more and getting more familiar with their stuff. Moisejp (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Lots of progress being made here. Most issues resolved. Still think there is more scope for polish, but very defiantly there significant improvement. Sorry if my work rate is a little slow Moisejp, but the progress here is steady. And, on the plus side we both got new favourite bands out of it! I am reading through the sources / book scans you sent - the annotations are interesting from seeing another editors approach POV, and v helpful indeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, thank you again for all your edits, and absolutely no need to apologize for the speed. I've been meaning to also chip away at addressing your comments, but I've seen you've worked on some of them, and I've been trying to catch up, and figure out where I can jump in to contribute to addressing your suggestions. Until now I mostly worked on SchroCat's comments because they were easier to quickly conceptualize how to address them. Your comments are also very good, but I haven't had long enough windows of time to sit down and wrap my head around the best way to tackle them. I've been meaning to allocate time to them but just haven't been able to get to them yet. But if you have clearer ideas than me for the best way to address some of your concerns, and you've been graciously willing to step in and make lots of edits, I'm very appreciative to the efforts you've been making for improving the article.
I also want to explain my last edit and express a couple of mini-concerns about the current state of the lead. I'm going to try to get to that tonight but if I don't manage, I will ASAP. Thank you again! Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About the mini-concerns with your edits to the lead. One is that I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with "Now considered a classic of 1990s rock". It sounds possibly a bit fan-y, and my natural instinct would be to keep a little more restrained, and let what Legacy-type facts (rankings, etc.) there are in the article speak for themselves. But if you feel strongly it's a good phrase to keep, I'm willing to go along with you, and we can see whether any other reviewers say anything over the course of the PR or FAC.
Another concern in the lead is "it is generally compared favorably to Kim's earlier work with the Pixies". Currently in the Reception section we have four critics explicitly comparing it favourably to the Pixies, and three who say it is worse. I did see your comment "I think you give too much weight to contemporary negative reviews; there is a bit of "on the one hand but on the other hand". Given the album is now an undisputed classic, its prob enough to say, some reviewers found it "bla", "bla" and "bla", and leave it at that. If these could be sourced to a unifying book source rather than individually to each journalist, all the better." I'm really happy to work with you to find the right balance of how much weight to give to good vs. bad reviews, so I imagine that the Reception part of the article may well evolve. I'm just concerned "it is generally compared favorably to Kim's earlier work with the Pixies" is not clearly true as the article stands now. But, yeah, now that I think of it, I guess it's less of a concern given the Reception section may evolve.
I also wanted to explain my reason for this edit [[7]] where I partially reverted back a recent change you made: As the article is now (and this is the approach I generally use, though I'm not necessarily tied to this approach, I just want to be consistent within each article) there's the lead that presents various facts and wiki-links (Kim Deal was from the Pixies, Ivo Watts-Russell was the co-founder of 4AD, etc.) then in the main text it goes back to stage zero, assumes the lead is a separate entity, and explains the same facts from the beginning. Your edit jumped right into the story based on the premise that Kim Deal has already been introduced as being in the Pixies. And that is also a valid way to treat the transition from the lead to the main text, i.e., that the basic facts mentioned in the lead don't need to be immediately restated in the main text. If we go with that conceptualization of the lead-main text relationship, that's fine, but I'm just concerned that it should be a conscious decision, and we would need to go through the whole article and make sure all other information is also treated the same way (e.g., in the same sentence that the reader already knows Tanya Donelly is from Throwing Muses, etc.). Moisejp (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but no need to explain! Trust your judgement and cool with me. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • during which Donnelly was distracted by drugs and by her boyfriend this seems a very harsh, and frankly demeaning, way of putting things. Would probably cut in the interests of BLP. Dont care if the sources say so; the sources are only music journalists after all. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albini was involved in the pre-production of the songs - Unlikely. Albini is steadfastly an engineer rather producer, so "pre-production" seem off. I would say that he enginnered these early recorings. "which Donelly found beneficial" is hopelessly vague and could mean anything. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donelly says "He likes to say he doesn’t produce or engineer but he does. And he did a lot of pre-production with us which is huge" but likely she didn't mean pre-production in the way the wiki-link describes it; likely she meant that he helped solidify with the band how the songs would sound before they were recorded. I agree that's a producer's role more than an engineer's and he usually calls himself "engineer" rather than "producer" (although Donelly does say "he does [produce]"). But there's a fair amount of speculation/interpretation in that, so it may be better to cut the detail, or possibly directly quote what she says. Other issues are that it's not clear when in the narrative this pre-production took place (in England during the rehearsals, or crammed into the already tight first week at the Palladium?), and as you say "was beneficial"/"is huge" is vague. I'll remove the detail for now, but happy to add back an altered version if any good ideas come up for a better way to present the info. Moisejp (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, but would probably not be happy yet to see this as FAC. There are still some logical gaps, and the writing needs work, even to make it okish. In a lot of places it seems sub-journalism speak, maybe still a little confused, and that doesn't sit will with me. Wish you had listened more closely to the spirit rather than following the specifics - letter- of my gist. Maybe you need to be less ambitious so early. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Ceoil, somehow I missed seeing these last three comments until now. The last one suggests there is a fair amount of work to be done. OK, I'll buckle up and look at your comments again and pay more close attention to the gist instead of the specifics, and see what I can do to improve it more. Thanks again for all your feedback. Moisejp (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Lovely article. The following comments are mostly suggestions rather than 'must-dos' (although there are a couple of things that you'll see obviously need actioning). I've been quite nit-picky on this, as I presume you're off to FAC afterwards.

Lead
  • "released on 4AD in May 1990" -> possibly "released on the 4AD label in May 1990"?
Background
  • "Due to": it may be (or may not be) a Br v Am thing, but "due to" always jars with me. "because of" is cleaner
  • professional and personal circumstances,[vague]: would "commitments" be better than "circumstances"? (That would satisfy [vague] for me – Popcornduff (as the one who added that tag) – would that work for you, if it's the right description)
    • I think "commitments" is a better word here than "circumstances" either way, but it wouldn't make it less vague. Right now it just feels like there's information missing, and it's a little conspicuous - is there any concrete information about what these commitments were? I added the tag just so everyone is aware of the possible avenue for improvement - if there's nothing better we can write, oh well, we'll remove it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Demo
  • "recorded a country music feel demo with violinist" -> "recorded a demo with a country music feel, alongside/with/featuring/etc violinist"
  • "and were described by the local Phoenix newspaper described them as a female supergroup" needs tweaking
  • "the Pixies' Surfer Rosa" -> " the Pixies' album Surfer Rosa" (not everyone will know)
Recording
  • This may be an Americanism, but should "worked in the Palladium studio" be "worked at the Palladium studio"? It would be in the UK, but I don't know about US-speak
  • "The studio was booked for two weeks, but the album took only several days to record": I'm not a fan of the definite (2 wks) v he vague (several days). Is there anything that gives a slightly more exact figure? If not, then rewording to something along the lines of "The studio was booked for two weeks, but the recording finished much earlier; with the remaining time..."
Songs
  • "Critics have described it" Someone is bound to add a [who] tag to that, regardless of the two citations at the end. You could add a footnote saying "These include xxx of Daily Rubbish and YYY of Spouting Nonsense magazine", just to avoid that
  • "Deal has cited the line "It lives, despite the knives internal" as the most embarrassing lyrics" perhaps -> " Deal has said the line "It lives, despite the knives internal" contains/consists/etc the most embarrassing lyrics"
  • "has been described as exhilarating" Similar point to the above -> "has been described by xxx as exhilarating".

That's it from me. All very nit-picky things in a good article. It reads well, but let me know when it goes to FAC and I'll give it a closer inspection then to see if there are any more bums to iron out (I think the lead could do with some more work to take out a bump or two, but I'll revisit that at FAC time). I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, SchroCat. Your feedback is really appreciated as always. I will look at these suggestions soon. Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "Pod is the debut album by American alternative rock band the Breeders, lead by Kim Deal, and released on the 4AD label in May 1990." Should "lead" be "led"?
  • "The cover art, of a man performing a fertility dance while wearing belt of eels, was designed by Vaughan Oliver." Should be an "a" before "belt"
  • "Pod was recorded in the Palladium studio in Edinburgh, Scotland." I'd change the first "in" to "at".
  • Link "demo" and possibly other artistic terms. Also in the lede, "the Pixies" is unlinked.
  • "partially preoccupied with drug-taking and her boyfriend," this could surely be phrased better. "Drug-taking"? Maybe "distracted by drugs and by her boyfriend"
  • "They resolved to repurpose their songs for a non-dance project" maybe conclude "for a different genre".
  • The first comma in "Demo" seems unneeded. What is a series of drummers?
  • "the Perfect Disaster had opened for the Pixies in London in c. 1988–89.[2][16][17]" Maybe after Pixies "at a show in London in 1988 or 1989".
  • The city where the Palladium is located is unsourced.
  • " a teenaged schizophrenic couple " maybe "a schizophrenic teenage couple".
  • "Critic Colin Larkin believes that the band's cover Lennon–McCartney's "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" achieves a friction that the Beatles' original only hints at,[31]" you need an "of" before Lennon, and why not substitute "The Beatles" for "Lennon-McCartney" and then "that the original ..."
  • "but being resolved that such a fate would be valid if it were to happen.[20]" valid? Seems an odd word here.
  • Why is the sic needed after sing-a-long?
  • "Regarding "When I Was a Painter", the next track, Lamacq was struck by Deal's gruff vocals and praised its stop-start guitar riff.[36] Critic Rob Sheffield named it as a highlight.[41] " I'm not sure "Regarding" is a terribly good way to start the sentence. I'm not sure what "it" is in the Sheffield sentence.
  • "Oliver, in an attempt to woo Deal, whom believed would appreciate the humor, " Some issue here with "whom". I'm not sure I like "woo".
  • "as superior to songs by Pixies." the.
  • "Steve Taylor of The A to X of Alternative Music also found Pod inferior to the Pixies," Technically you are comparing an album with a band. Maybe end it ... also found the album inferior to those of the Pixies" or similar.
  • You are inconsistent: "side two" vs. "side 2".
I'm surprised to find this many small things this late in the peer review. Probably could use a couple more scans from competent reviewers. In general, though, good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review, Wehwalt! Ceoil and I have been editing some of the content back and forth, as you say late in the peer review, and I think you caught it in a bit of a state of flux where I hadn't had a chance yet to go back and polish some of the typos and inconsistencies that arose. I'm not saying all of the issues you brought up are in that category, but for those that were, I'm sorry that the timing was such that you had to catch them. In any case, thank you again, and I will have a good look at all of your comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN 54129

edit

Made a couple of tweaks which can be seen here, but they're very minor (and in case you didn't like them I rolled them back). Nice article, gis a shout @FAC. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLZ

edit

Gonna start looking at the article + previous comments. —BLZ · talk 21:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some other notes: I've picked a pre-peer review version of the page to use for comparison. I'm jumping in after several others have had a chance to review the page, so I may make recommendations that clash with prior comments or edits. I'll do my best to check against comments made on the review page, but I won't necessarily be checking edits made to the page. I'm also not consulting sources, so I may suggest wording that doesn't exactly square with the facts as reported. Let me know if there's any conflict.

  • I recommend incorporating the year that the photo of Donelly was taken into the caption.
  • "In 1988, Kim Deal of the Pixies became friends with Tanya Donelly of Throwing Muses when the bands toured Europe together, and she and Donelly played guitar, drank, and shared musical ideas." —> "In 1988, Kim Deal of the Pixies became friends with Tanya Donelly of Throwing Muses when the bands toured Europe together. Deal and Donelly spent time together playing guitar, drinking beer, and sharing musical ideas."
    • This is pretty close to matching an earlier recommendation of Ceoil's. I think splitting this sentence is a good idea for flow. I liked the earlier phrasing "spent time", since it suggests their bonding and togetherness amidst these activities. I'd recommend adding back the word "beer". The past-tense verb "drank" without an object seems suggestive of a despondent or terminal mood, somehow—not quite Leaving Las Vegas, but it conjures up (to my ear) a more dire situation than social drinking. Adding back "spent time" and revising to "drinking beer" provides a little more descriptive detail and lightens it up.
  • "They often went clubbing together during the tour and in the bands' hometown of Boston. At a Sugarcubes concert, dance music was playing between sets, and the two drunkenly decided to write and record dance songs." —> "They often went clubbing together during the tour and, afterward, in the bands' hometown of Boston. While attending a Sugarcubes concert, the two heard dance music playing between sets and drunkenly decided to write and record dance songs of their own."
    • The current wording is OK for the most part, but I missed the earlier revision's more precise indications of time. Adding "afterward" helps to orient the reader's sense of the historical narrative; without it, the tour never has a clear endpoint. I added "of their own" because it suggests inspiration and collaboration—otherwise it sounds like a rote, depersonalized cause-and-effect of hearing dance music→wanting to make dance music—and it leads into their specific conception of the dance-music style they wanted to try ("They envisioned..."). Revising the sentence to "the two heard ... and drunkenly decided" helps consolidate the action, avoiding some passive voicing and an extra comma.
  • "One year and a half passed after their recording of "Rise", during which Donnelly was distracted by drugs and by her boyfriend, and Deal by the worsening relationships in the Pixies. During this time, the friends decided that their attempt at dance music was not working, and abandoned it." —> "Despite their plans, a year and a half passed without the band recording any new music. During this time, Donnelly was distracted by drugs and her boyfriend, and Deal by worsening relationships in the Pixies. The friends decided that their attempt at dance music was not working and abandoned it."
    • "One year and a half" has an odd ring to me, "a year and a half" is more natural. This structure reduces use of the word "during". "Drugs"—any in particular? Worth mentioning? Some drugs are more distracting than others.
  • "when her Pixies bandmate Black Francis decided to do a solo tour, feeling she too could pursue other projects."
    • In the current wording, it's not strictly clear whether Deal felt she could pursue other projects after Francis set out on tour, or whether Francis set out on tour feeling that Deal too could pursue other projects.
  • Thanks, BLZ. I used all of your suggestions above. Elsewhere, Ceoil suggested removing the mention of Donelly's drug use, so I have. About Deal's thoughts on Francis's doing work outside the Pixies, I partially reverted to an earlier version where I think the bit you were concerned about is clearer. Moisejp (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the Pixies and Throwing Muses had different American record labels, contractually Deal and Donelly could not both be the main songwriters for their joint project." —> "Because the Pixies and Throwing Muses were signed to different American record labels, Deal and Donelly could not both be principle songwriters for their joint project."
  • OK, I've made this change. Ceoil is concerned this idea may not be clear for people not familiar with the music biz, and I'm not sure if through discussion there may be a different solution decided on for this bit. Moisejp (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a slang term used by homosexuals to refer to heterosexuals" —> "a slang term used ['by gay people' or 'in the LGBT community'] to refer to straight people"
    • Using "homosexual" as a noun for a person can be considered pejorative because it can read as clinical/sterile. See Homosexuality#Etymology. I went ahead and changed it in the article.
  • "Ivo Watts-Russell, co-founder of the Pixies' and Throwing Muses' label 4AD"
    • Earlier, you had mentioned that the Pixies and Muses had different American labels. A savvy reader might pick up that this reference to a shared label must be the bands' distribution outside the US, but it could be confusing. It might be worth creating a footnote to unpack the bands' label situation (this could also help explain why they toured together in Europe).
  • I think you're right, it would be beneficial to spell out the label situation in one central place. I have to figure out where to put it, because I already have info about the Breeders' American label situation in the Release section, which seems like a good place for that bit at least. In the US,the Pixies were licensed to Elektra and Throwing Muses I think to Sire, and Ivo originally licensed Pod to Rough Trade. When it went bankrupt, Elektra took over. Some interesting quotes in Aston:
  • "Deal subsequently recorded a new Pixies album, though Ivo wisely kept the two records apart to avoid any conflict of press duties and reduce the number of unavoidable comparisons. Ivo also kept the two albums separate in terms of licensing, thinking Pod was more suited to an independent label. He managed to persuade Elektra of this thought, and licensed Pod to Rough Trade America."
  • "The Breeders never got any money for Pod," recalls Kim Deal. "We were told the money Rough Trade America made [by licensing Pod] was reinvested in Butthole Surfers' [album] piouhgd, and then the label went bankrupt."
  • "[Deal] had first been upset when Rough Trade America's licensing of Pod meant the album wasn't included as one of the three albums that Deal owed under her Pixies contract with Elektra."
  • A couple of non-Aston sources with hints about relevant contracts, that may or may not be within in the scope of what to include in the footnote in this article: 1. [[8]] (1995) "the Breeders aren’t really a signed band. I’m signed to 4AD, but just me, not the Breeders. I can deliver a Kim Deal tuba record if I want."
  • 2. [[9]] (2009) "Deal also took the opportunity to do a little record straightening. After complaining that a Rolling Stone story from several years ago reported the Breeders had been dropped from Elektra, she explained why this wasn’t so: “I’ve only been on 4AD. We couldn’t be dropped, we were only licensed to Elektra and Title TK was the last album we owed to 4AD anyway.” "
These are details I haven't included in the article, but if I can find a good central place to talk about the various bands' label situation in the US, some of these details could be interesting. I'll have a good think. Moisejp(talk) 03:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find most of these very interesting indeed and worthy of inclusion. Especially "The Breeders never got any money for Pod" and "Ivo wisely kept the two records apart" pieces. I would, Moisejp, add a paragraph or two along these lines to the "Background" section. In fairness, most people reading this far will be hardcore Pixies fans, and interested in Deal's transition between the two groups and how that worked. Ceoil (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Brandt Luke Zorn, I've added a footnote with the info you requested. See what you think (for example, whether it possibly goes into too much detail, or whether there are points that could use expansion), and of course feel free to tweak the wording. I've been concentrating on gathering ideas and sources for this the last couple of weeks. Now I'm going to go through your comments and see if there is anything else I missed or said I'd get back to. Thanks! Moisejp(talk) 04:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in my sandbox (see link right above), for the draft of the footnote I've got quite a few quotes typed out (or copy-and-pasted) from sources that I tentatively thought might or might not be useful, and in some cases I did or didn't use the info. If you happen to skim those, and there is any info I didn't include that you think I should, just let me know, thx! Moisejp (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the footnote about Walford and his decision to use an assumed name is worth inclusion in the main text.
  • "Albini was involved in the pre-production of the songs, which Donelly found beneficial." — strikes me as a little vague. Is there more info about how Albini was involved? Why did Donelly find his work beneficial? Looks like this got removed following Ceoil's comments, but I'm posting the strike-through comment to indicate that I too raised an eyebrow at this sentence. I will say this: it's probably worth unpacking Albini's reputation and style for a general readership who aren't hip to alt-rock history, the kind of people who haven't heard of In Utero and for whom Surfer Rosa would be a hopelessly obscure, bizarre oddity—and forget about 1000 Hurts. Now that I know (per your comments above) that Donelly said Albini "likes to say he doesn't produce or engineer but he does [a]nd he did a lot of pre-production with us which is huge": with the addition of a more general introduction of Albini, you could then say something like (not necessarily this exact wording, but the general shape) "Although Albini typically takes a hands-off approach with the musicians he records, Donelly said he was uncharacteristically involved with the band as they prepared songs prior to recording." Using "prior to recording" (or "pre-recording") rather than "pre-production" would help clarify what's going on without suggesting Albini did something other than whatever he did.
  • I really like your idea of substituting "prior to recording" for "pre-production". And in theory your idea of giving more background of Albini's usual recording style could be really useful. (A new source may be required that talks about his work in general rather than just on Pod. I can look for one, but if one happens to spring to your mind that you're already aware of, just let me know, thanks.) But what's problematic is if we say that Donelly is saying that his "pre-recording" extra help means he wasn't "hands-off", but we already have Wiggs saying he was "hands-off", there's a contradiction there. Unless we take the angle of embracing the contradiction and do a "Donelly said... but Wiggs said..." approach. I guess it didn't occur to me until that they might be saying contradictory things. My gut instinct is still that they were saying somewhat the same thing. The full quote from Wiggs is "Even though perhaps he likes to think his role is transparent, his 'hands-off' approach has a pretty big influence on the way an album turns out." Her "Even though perhaps he likes to think his role is transparent" sounds a lot like Donelly's "[Albini] likes to say he doesn't produce or engineer but he does". It's just the second half of what each said that could be interpreted as meaning something different. What's your opinion about all this? Moisejp (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possibly because I believe he occasionally or sometimes hasn't asked for credit for his engineering work (not sure how often this was, or if it was more when he was younger than now). For The Supersonic Storybook, he isn't credited in the liner notes, and for the Amp's Pacer, he is credited as Fluss, the name of his cat. This is part of his tendency to downplay the importance of his contribution to recordings, from what I understand. Moisejp (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article currently credits him as engineer in the prod notes. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I have tentatively added "prior to recording" by adding the second half of the following sentence: "Donelly believes the removal of harmonies made the performances "more effective and sadder and ... focused", and has praised Albini for the helpful input that he gave the band prior to recording." I don't claim it's a brilliant edit but it's possibly a slight improvement than without it, and could be temporary if I can succeed in pulling something together with the following ideas: (Basically it's not too far off BLZ's idea and my beginnings of ideas above.) It would be removing the words "hands off" (which could sound contradictory and confusing) and instead focus on how Wiggs and Donelly both say that although Albini claims he doesn't actively contribute to how songs turn out, he actually does. And then use BLZ's idea for adding a footnote to give some background about Albini's reported role, etc. I've started a section for this in my Sandbox called Recording: Wiggs vs. Donelly. (There I've also typed up some unused information/quotations about the Breeders fighting with Albini in the studio, which may not fit in the exact scope I've just mentioned, but may be useful somewhere.) All right, so I think I'm going to need some time to craft this and find good sources, and I'll report back here when I'm done. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We learn that the demo was country-influenced, and then later that the album wasn't. Was there any particular inspiration for the embrace or abandonment of a country sound?
  • No, there isn't. One thing I noticed in listening again to the demo today is that it's really Carrie Bradley's violin that gives a few of the songs on the demo a semi-country feel, and they're all songs that didn't make it onto Pod, especially "Drivin' on 9" (the studio version on Last Splash is arguably also country-ish—so in this case, it's maybe the song that's country more than a given recording), "Overcome", and to a lesser degree maybe "You Always Hang Around" and possibly "Silver" (I can't decide if the violin on it is country or not). Ceoil mentioned he didn't think the demo was especially country and I'd agree on most of the songs this is true. Of all my sources, only Aston mentioned the country vs. not country distinction (though overall not many sources talk much about the sound of the demo at all). I guess I'm trying to say is that if this country vs. not country distinction is problematic, one option could possibly be to remove mention of it. I don't have a strong opinion either way and am open to suggestions. Moisejp (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 'Doe', a schizophrenic teenage couple lose their grasp of reality after taking too much Thorazine; in a delusional state of Bambi-like innocence, they plan to burn down their town" — I'm assuming this is according to Deal, or someone else in the band? You should probably indicate who provided this explanation/interpretation, because very little of this would be obvious from a straightforward, uninformed reading of the lyrics.
  • I'm jumping ahead to responding to this comment, although there are some in the middle I still need to look at. I understand your point here and in theory I agree. My only concern is that what you said of "Doe" could also likely be said of "Glorious", "Fortunately Gone", "Opened", "Only in 3s", and "Lime House". If in this section I need to add an extra six instances of "Deal said"/"According to Deal"/etc., the section is going to get plodding. Any advice on how you'd handle this? (Also, as another possible mini-justification for keeping as is, all the instances where the song descriptions come from Deal are cited as such (ref #20) in the Footnotes section. The reader can look down and see that the information is attributed to Deal.) Moisejp (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up to this point I've gotten through the "Songs" section. I generated most of these notes when I was working on the page yesterday, so I figure I'll hit "publish changes" now to save my progress. —BLZ · talk 21:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLZ and Ceoil, I've got a short window of time right now and am going to speed-type to try to sum up where I think where we are with this review and what actions may be outstanding. If I don't have time to finish typing, I'll put a quick note saying so, and please bear with me until I get back to my summary after.

  • Ceoil, you asked for mention of the Breeders not making any money off the album's US sales due to the Rough Trade bankruptcy; and re-reading your comment now, I just noticed you asked to add about Ivo wisely keeping the albums apart. Yes, I will add both. I'm thinking it'll easily fit in the first footnote. OK place for it? I think in the footnote I've already got lots of good details about the various bands' contracts, as BLZ requested, but if there's anything in my sandbox in the Footnote section that I didn't include that jumps out at you as good to include, let me know.
    Would strongly prefer article body to the notes. It’s stuff like this that gives insight into the circumstances of deals headspace at the time, IMO gives far more to the reader than twenty cut and paste critical dubious analysis quotes. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLZ, I think you said you've checked to the end of the Songs section. If you have a chance to look at the rest, that'd be great. Also, Ceoil kindly did some medium-heavy editing of the whole article. If you would like to have a skim of the first bit to see if it all still works for you, please do.
  • BLZ, your last comment above, where you suggested mentioning where the explanations of the songs were from Deal. I replied this was going to be several instances and was going to add a lot of words ("According to Deal...", "Deal has said..." etc.). If you feel strongly it should be done, I can do it. Or if you see my point that doing so would have its pro's and con's, we can consider whether it's the best thing to do.
  • Both Ceoil and BLZ, you had mini-concerns relating to the description of the songs as country (in BLZ's case, the concern was re. no explanation for the subsequent change away from country—your second-to-last comment). I added more points (under BLZ's comment) about how I agreed the "country" label may not be 100% clear cut, and that I don't have any other reliable-source info to flesh the explanation out with. I'm happy to keep mention of country vs. non-country, or to simply remove it altogether. Thoughts?
  • About BLZ's "pre-production"/"prior to recording" comment: One of Ceoil's edits may be a solution to that: "Albini focused on capturing strong live performances in the studio,[28] and took a deliberately "hands-off" approach compared with the usual role of a record producer." Or, in my sandbox in the Recording: Wiggs vs. Donelly section, I've started a draft of a different kind of solution. It's not complete, but I hope you can get from my notes the gist of what direction I was going with it. It's basically to remove the words "hands off" and to focus on that Wiggs and Donelly both say Albini contributed more than he takes credit for. (One funny thing I noticed was that Wiggs called his role "hands off" while the AllMusic article on Albini calls his role "hands on"—which is closer to what Donelly says. Anyway, I think they're all saying the same thing but just chose their words quite differently.) Anyway, I'll hold off from my continuing my draft of the section (i.e., the one in my sandbox) until I hear back whether there's possibly any consensus that Ceoil's solution or the sandbox solution is better.
  • Ceoil, about "Due to Deal's highly regarded work with the Pixies, the album was widely anticipated", which you added back to the lead: My concern is that whatever's in the lead should in theory be in the main text, and whatever's in the main text should have a reference. As I mentioned, I currently don't have any explicit reference to this (although I do have a couple of refs that vaguely hint this was likely true in the UK). Ceoil, I don't want to ask you to do a bunch of extra work, but I think you said you have access to Rock's Backpages or something like that. At the library, I scanned spring 1990 (April-May, just before release) Melody Maker and NME issues for references to the release, which are the only UK mags from the period that they had available. Are there any other UK mags or periodicals that you'd have easy access to that might talk about it? If we could find just one reference that says explicitly "highly anticipated", we'd be gold. But again, I'm not asking you necessarily to do lots and lots of scouring. I'm just saying if you happen to have quick, easy access to something, there could be a lead there to pursue.
  • In "The Breeders Set Release Date for Pod" (Melody Maker May 19, 1990) there is "The Breeders have finally announced details of the album Pod...". That seems to express some anticipation, and could maybe be a start. Lamacq says the "record does all it can to justify the attention it'll receive because of the people involved with it—right down to engineer Steve Albini." Not sure if that's exactly the same thing as anticipation, though. I'll keep looking online just in case I can find anything. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be all my thoughts. I'll scan the PR again to see if I missed anything. Thanks again to both of you for all of your much-appreciated help! Moisejp (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a chance to look over it again this evening (in my time zone, this evening = the next few hours). I'll be reading over these latest comments, the parts I've already read through, and the rest. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I had a partial response ready to go and then Chrome crashed on me. Starting up again, this time I'll be saving my comments one at a time. —BLZ · talk 23:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes:

  • I agree with Ceoil that "not making any money from US sales" should be included in the main text. Idk if there are any statements anywhere about sales figures (US and/or UK), but those would be nice to have alongside this fact. Even in the absence of hard numbers, even relative statements (e.g. that Pod's full-length followup Last Splash sold significantly better) would be worth including. (Sasha Frere-Jones pulled soundscan figures for various 90s alt bands in a post from 2005; regretfully, he ran full discography requests for every band he chose except the Breeders, for whom he only requested Last Splash.)
  • Here [[11]] Last Splash is listed as platinum in the US while Pod is not listed as gold or platinum. I wonder though if Rough Trade's going bankrupt could possibly have made Rough Trade sales figures unavailable and not included? I don't know enough about how that stuff works. I'll try to think about whether there's a good, safe way to use this info, or maybe as you suggest if I hunted around online it wouldn't be too hard to find somewhere saying Last Splash sold a lot better than Pod. Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further consideration, I agree that more in-text attribution to Deal would be excessive. In this respect the songs section is reasonable the way it's written.
  • The country music aspect is fine as well. I asked about it mainly to see if there was any further info to be mined there; for example, if there was an anecdote equivalent to the Sugarcubes concert that inspired their interest in dance music, or if they had been inspired by any country musicians in particular. If this info doesn't exist, that's fine too. I don't think further "explanation" is required, the text as it appears makes perfect sense, it just generates some natural curiosity.
  • I would say the key introductory points about Albini would be as follows, in descending order of importance: he avoids the term "producer" in favor of "engineer"; his general work style (setting up beforehand, pressing record, one complete take, badabing badaboom, no overdubs and no redos); his "punk" ideology (his reasons for preferring his barebones recording style, his dim view of the "mainstream" record industry and other producers); reputation for somewhat gruff/stubborn personality (especially since you should also add some text about Deal's fights with him, see below).
All told, this could be its own paragraph. So far, you have a suggestion of his work style, which is described as "hands-off"; I think the best solution to avoid having to label his process is to simply describe his process, as outlined in my parenthetical ("badabing") above. You describe his reasons pretty well (the "main concern" sentence), although I think you could do a bit more to flesh out his reputation and thoughts, because it would better illustrate the difference between Albini and "normal" producers.
Certainly worth its own paragraph. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having established all that, the next paragraph could focus on the issue of how the musicians felt that Albini made an impact, and/or how he was actually more "involved" (or "responsible" for the album's sound) than his "hands-off" reputation/attitude might suggest on the surface.
  • Some of the stuff in your sandbox about Albini and Deal fighting would certainly be worth including in the main text. It's keen insight into the recording process and reveals an interesting back-and-forth dynamic. Wiggs's observation about American tantrums is charming.
  • Regarding "widely anticipated": I think a sentence along these lines to introduce the "release" section is the right idea, if not in that exact form. The text you pulled from Melody Maker and Lamacq would justify something like (feel free to rework this, it's just a sketch): "Pod generated anticipation in the British music press due to the involvement of Deal, known from her highly regarded work with the Pixies, and Albini, who had established a reputation for his engineering work for other artists' music."
  • I perused the In Utero 33⅓ and there is a mention of Pod; specifically, it notes that Surfer Rosa and Pod being two of Cobain's favorite albums was the main reason he chose Albini (pp. 34–35). I think this is a worthy connection to make, especially to connect the dots for readers who may not know that lineage (or even for those who do know that lineage; it's often satisfying to see things you already know included in explicit terms).

From Rock's Backpages (presented in a haphazard order, bearing in mind that RBP's search function is not the most refined):

Rock's Backpages excerpts
  • Most of this is already contained in the article (Sugarcubes anecdote is retold). There may be some moderately useful insights from Deal and Donelly about their perspective on where the Breeders fit in with "women in rock" (specifically foremothers like Patti Smith).
  • "The Breeders' previous LP and a half's worth of material, 1990's Pod and last year's Safari EP, were fairly casual collaborations quickly knocked out between Pixies' commitments with another '80s Boston-club grad, Tanya Donelly, now feeding her own Belly on MTV. While the Pixies were a viable entity, Deal's downtime dabblings were greeted with critical acclaim, but marketed with all the vavoom accorded Bill Wyman's Monkey Grip."
  • Nothing really besides Cobain recalling, of his first meeting with Deal: "Well, I loved Pod so much that I was really freaked out to meet you."
  • Women in rock! Patti Smith!
"The history of "female rock" has been a long and convoluted one. ... By the end of the Sixties it had become acceptable for women to step out of the shadows as bacchanalian tomboys (Janis Joplin) or willowy, introspective singer-songwriters (Joni Mitchell), but only with the release of Patti Smith's Horses in 1976 was a hitherto repressed, aggressive female voice heard for the first time. ... The first indications that women were once again shouting from the margins came from albums like Babes in Toyland's Spanking Machine (1989) and The Breeders' Pod (1990). If the Babes' ‘Swamp Pussy’ didn't spell it out, then ‘Vomit Heart’ and ‘Fork Down Throat’ certainly did. Kat Bjelland's ugly scream of a voice wasn't exactly ear candy but it made you sit up and pay attention. Pod featured songs equally unembarrassed in their preoccupation with abortion, overdoses, child molesters and ménages à trios. In the wake of these records have come other 'babes': Inger Lorre, Courtney Love of the engagingly-named Hole, Donita Sparks of the hardcore metal quartet L7, and on this side of the Atlantic PJ Harvey and Daisy Chainsaw's Katie Jane Garside."
  • "Watts-Russell's art appreciation led him to hire a full-time designer, Vaughan Oliver, whose pioneering sleeves – from the David Lynch-ian image of Oliver himself wearing a belt of dead eels for the Breeders' Pod to photographer Nigel Grierson's paint-and-water abstractions for Cocteau Twins – matched 4AD's musical ideals."
  • "After the lengthy Doolittle tour, Santiago and Lovering took vacations; Deal found an outlet for her singing and songwriting by forming an all-female band called the Breeders, which recorded an excellent album, Pod; Thompson bought a canary-yellow Cadillac and drove across the country with his girlfriend, playing occasional solo gigs for gas money."
  • In the space between Doolittle and Bossanova, the four Pixies have been following their own peculiar mazes: guitarist, Joey Santiago, went off in search of his in the Grand Canyon; Charles drove across America in his canary yellow Cadillac, playing solo gigs to pay for some new furniture for his LA home; drummer David has been, "concentrating, real hard"; bassist, Kim Deal, has been busy with The Breeders, making a dirty depraved album.
"It wasn't a matter of getting the dirt and depravity out of my system though," she says. 'There's an endless supply of that stuff. I just wanted to sing. So I sang. I have a lovely voice and I should use it. If I can't sing in this band, I'll sing in another band, if I'm good at something, then I'll do it. At least I'll try. If I can't do it, then I'll soon find out.
"I've been singing less and less in The Pixies. Just oohing and aahing. You can get a syntheziser to do that, but Charles is lead singer. Not only that, he sings every f***ing one! Who does he think he is? Mr Hog! Mr Bigshot! Shut up Charles! Shut your f***ing food-hole for three minutes and give Kim a chance."
Was the making of Pod a fulfilling experience?
"Oh sure, the only problem with The Breeders was that the other two (Tanya from Throwing Muses and Josephine from Perfect Disaster) always use big words. I had to carry a big dictionary around to find out what they were talking about."
  • Has there ever been a music which is inherently, definitively female?
[Courtney Love:] [...] "To get back to your question, The Cocteau Twins are an entirely female band. And a man could never have written Pod (The Breeders), and that works well on a cooing, pretty level. She doesn't get ugly there. Whereas Rid Of Me (PJ Harvey) has some terribly ugly moments, and she wrote every note of that."
  • Wallace, Wyndham. "4AD Records: Labelled with Love". Classic Pop, 2013. AR Kane, Bauhaus, Belly, The Birthday Party, Bon Iver, The Breeders, Cocteau Twins, Dead Can Dance, Lush, M/A/R/R/S, Modern English, The National, The Pixies, Red House Painters, This Mortal Coil, Throwing Muses, Xmal Deutschland. Rock's Backpages. http://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Article/4ad-records-labelled-with-love.
  • Names Pod one of the "50 essential 4AD productions", ranked in no order (chronologically), ranging from Rema-Rema's Wheel In The Roses EP (1980) to the National's Trouble Will Find Me (2013).
  • This would work in place of my suggestion of the In Utero 33⅓: "But Kurt was particularly after the drum sound he had heard on two Albini projects – the Pixies' epochal 1988 album Surfer Rosa and the Breeders' excellent 1990 album Pod. It's a natural, powerful sound produced with canny microphone placement rather than phoney-sounding effects boxes. It reminded Kurt of the drum sound on Aerosmith's 1976 Rocks album."

That should be just about everything from RBP. —BLZ · talk 02:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something else: I'd swap the photo of John Peel for a photo of Albini. Peel's a nice man, but he's not as big of a part of this story as Albini. There are plenty of free photos of Albini available. —BLZ · talk 03:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, thanks so much, BLZ! I'll start working at your suggestions and at the RBP refs as soon as I can. Also, good idea to switch Albini image for Peel's. Speaking of images (it actually feels to kind of inconsequential to bring up this question now right after the big wealth of important ideas and suggestions you mentioned, but I had been preparing this question before I saw you addition): Ceoil recently added the image of Deal, and it got me thinking it'd be nice to have at least one image in the bottom half, which is so bare. Here's some ideas. Any preferences, BLZ and Ceoil, or other ideas? [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with Kurt. I think Ceoil was right to say that "hardcore Pixies fans" will constitute a large portion of the article's readers, but I think a lot of people get into Pod via Cobain (that's how I encountered the Breeders, personally, but I had to listen to Last Splash first even though I craved the mysterious, Kurt-approved Pod). This is my own assessment, but Cobain probably raised the profile of Pod higher than anything else he endorsed besides Surfer Rosa, Meat Puppets, the Vaselines, Leadbelly, Daniel Johnston, and flannel shirts (what else even comes close to those? Melvins? The Jesus Lizard? David Bowie? Onyx typeface? Christian Roth sunglasses? Deodorant?).
As to Sonic Youth, I think the connection is a little more attenuated: the Kim Gordon comparison was one critic's thought, and Gordon has no explicit connection to the album. Ditto the Sherlock/opium illustrations; I don't see what elevates that song in particular to the need for accompanying illustration (I prefer the Sherlock image of the two, for the record).
One other thing I just found: there's a slightly better source for the Christgau quip, giving a date and establishing that it was published in the Village Voice. —BLZ · talk 05:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again BLZ, thanks again for the Rock Backpages stuff. I've never cited from them before. Do you include "Rock Backpages" in the reference (and if so what parameter does it go in), or do you treat the ref like a reference to the original publication, and not mention RBP (and if so are the original page numbers available)?

From the RBP ones you listed, Wallace and Azzerad sound like potentially really good ones to add, maybe other too (haven't had a chance to think through all of them yet). The "Who does he think he is? Mr Hog! Mr Bigshot! Shut up Charles!" quote from Deal is interesting, and could be another motivation about why she started the band. Of course sources exist that say she started the Breeders as a creative outlet that she didn't have in the Pixies, but until now I held back from getting into that because all of the direct quotes from her that I've seen so far have denied this was a big issue. If I did get into that, it would have to be a balanced discussion where quotes from her saying both points of view are presented. Argh, the potential scope of this article keeps getting bigger. ;-) Let me know if you have an opinion about this. Moisejp (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid to spill over into The Breeders article itself, if need be! As for sourcing, treat the citations as if you're citing the original source (Spin or whatever it may be). Then include the RBP URL and set |via=Rock's Backpages, which is for "content deliverers" that are not the "publishers". For example, Valence Media appears to be Spin's current "publisher" (i.e., their owner), but anything from Spin on RBP has been licensed to be republished there, so "via" is the appropriate place to indicate this. Last, you should indicate that the info at the URL can't be retrieved without a subscription. You can set "|url-access=subscription" in the citation template, add Template:Subscription required after the citation template, or both. —BLZ · talk 20:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acclaimed Music might be a good starting point for finding other instances of retrospective acclaim, if you haven't checked there already. Looks like Pod was included on NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, and there's maybe a few others worth mentioning.

Also: should Albini be in the infobox as the record's producer? I know, I know... but consider that Albini is listed as such for In Utero, despite getting his "recorded by" credit for that album (as can be seen on Discogs). And despite his anti-producer stance and unconventional techniques, it's hard to deny that he basically satisfies the role of a "producer" even if he disagrees with that term and the traditional definition of that role in recording. Maybe he could be listed there as "Steve Albini (engineer)"? —BLZ · talk 04:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I've already found an official online link for the NME Top 500 list [[16]], let's see if I can track down any other ones.
About whether to list Albini as producer in the infobox... There's no perfect answer, as you know. For Title TK, I didn't list him. All through the Pod article we call him "engineer...engineer...engineer", and as discussed I'm going to add the paragraph where it'll say he doesn't like being called "producer". But on the other hand down below there is the category "Albums produced by Steve Albini" because there is no existing category for "Albums engineered by Steve Albini" (when I proposed we create one, Koavf explained to me we can't because there is no parent category "Albums by engineer"). And I understand the other arguments for listing him. My inclination would be to not list him, but if you feel strongly enough that we should, then we could. (But in that case if it comes up during the FAC about why we did it that way, I might call on you to defend your case.) Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky. Albini is so commonly described as a producer—just do a search on Google and Google Books for "albini producer"—even by people who know about his preference to not be credited or described as a producer. This book profiling modern music producers includes Albini, but then immediately notes his preference against the term. It is technically true (as far as I'm aware) that Albini has steadfastly refused to take a credit as a "producer". But in order to criticize the role of a "producer", Albini defines that role in certain specific ways. He has his own idea of what a "producer" is, and while his idea is based on real things that real producers do (such as taking royalties, using recording techniques Albini deems inauthentic, or influencing the band's sound or performance in certain ways Albini disapproves of), it's still his own understanding/definition. In other words, to fully accept Albini's categorical refusal to be labeled a "producer", we have to first accept his definition of what it means to be a producer.
But "producer" can be construed to mean a wide variety of things. It can mean someone who oversees the creation of the music or recording with a very involved, directorial approach, like Phil Spector. In modern hip hop, a "producer" may have total responsibility for every musical element except for the rapping; in electronic music, there may be no division whatsoever between the roles of "producer" and "musician". "Producer" can also mean something as simple as "the person who hit the record button". It's also not out of the question to include someone in the "Producer" position of the infobox but then immediately clarify their actual role with a parenthetical; for example, executive producers are still included in that part of the infobox, but with "(exec.)" right after their names, even though an executive "producer" may be far less involved, or even totally uninvolved, in the actual production/recording process.
Another issue: the reason the infobox wouldn't have an "Engineer" parameter is in most cases that role is (perceived to be) subordinate to some other person, the credited producer. The same goes for "mixing", "mastering", and other production/post-production roles. If you had an "engineer" parameter, then you would need one for "mixing engineer", "mastering engineer", etc., and you could use those parameters for every album in which there is both a producer and one of those roles. The infobox would just end up fully duplicating the "personnel" section. But Albini's role as "engineer" is not one in which he is subordinate to some other person who is the "true" producer. He is the person most responsible for the recording and recorded sound of the music he engineers. The more I think about it, the more I feel that "Steve Albini (engineer)" is probably the way to go. —BLZ · talk 04:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BLZ and Ceoil, all right, I've added a para about Albini, and rearranged some other content in the section to hopefully come close to what you guys were asking for? If I'm off the mark, I'm happy to take another stab, just let me know. Also, BLZ, you suggested adding something comparing the sales of Pod and Last Splash. I looked some and didn't find anything good—unless you feel strongly my one idea that I mentioned is good (it seems not so strong to me, but could be swayed if you think otherwise). I also added a couple of rankings from Acclaimed.net that seemed to fit well. There's more I could have added but I didn't want to go too overboard—again, am open to suggestions. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the prose soon. Btw, regarding the sales thing: I forgot to link the Sasha Frere-Jones post I referenced earlier but this is it. To unpack album sales measurements in the US: the RIAA certifications are notable, but they are not "sales figures", exactly. If an album goes gold, then it has shipped 500k copies, not sold 500k copies. The certifications just mean that the label or whoever has sent a certain number of copies of the album to retailers, regardless of whether they sold (although presumably they do, at least in a ballpark range somewhere close to the cert figure, because a label will stop shipping excess unsold copies if it has any business sense). On the other hand, Nielsen SoundScan has been tracking sales figures in the US since March 1, 1991, down to the single digit. That means it also tracks amounts far lower than 500,000, and with far more precision. Unfortunately, you need a SoundScan membership to access those figures, those don't come cheap, and I don't know how you could cite those figures on Wikipedia even if you had them, because presumably they'd still have to be published by a secondary source who has access to them. That's what's so frustrating about that SFJ post: he had access to SoundScan, and he was ludicrously comprehensive in his rundown of sales for bands like Pavement, Sonic Youth, and Slint (which, hey, I appreciate all of those very much), yet he only bothered to check one Breeders album, and it's the most obvious one.
Good news: I remembered I have access to a newspaper database through WestLaw, so I'm digging through any mention of The Breeders and Pod in search of anything like sales figures. So far no dice, but there are a few potentially useful sources I'm finding along the way. Some of it may help with the sales thing, although there are still no hard figures in what I've found (so far). I'm gonna dump them here like I did earlier with the RBP stuff. —BLZ · talk 05:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More sources
Sales
  • Taylor, Sam "The Cusp of Fame: Living Rock Fuels the Breeders" Calgary Herald September 12, 1993
  • "The Breeders were perceived as a creative escape for Deal and Donnelly, who were secondary figures in their respective bands, but Deal denies this.
"That's absolutely not true. Some people like to imagine me playing bass in a corner with a tear in my eye, wishing I had a creative outlet for all my wonderful ideas, but it wasn`t like that." ...
"The album [Pod] received critical acclaim amid modest sales. And now it's time for round 2, with The Breeders having just released their second album, Last Splash."
  • "When the album [Last Splash] was eventually recorded, they had no expectations for its success, she [Kim Deal] says. Their debut album, Pod, had been wellreceived, but the idea that anything that The Breeders would put out would be played on radio or become a hit was absurd - even something as sparky as Cannonball."
I quite like that, it says "hey, Pod got good reviews, but the idea that they were on the cusp of a hit single and platinum album was not on anyone's radar."
  • Reed, James "Diving back into 'Last Splash': The Breeders reunite to celebrate the 20th anniversary of their breakthrough album" The Boston Globe May 3, 2013
  • "As for why "Last Splash" broke the band instead of its 1990 debut, "Pod," back when the Breeders included founding members Kim Deal (who was still part of the Pixies) and Throwing Muses' Tanya Donelly, Kelley Deal says that's a mystery. She admits something jelled for the band on its second outing.
"I'm gonna say me, obviously," she says, laughing, before making a distinction about how the two albums were made. The songs on "Pod," which was engineered by Steve Albini and had an arid, minimal production, were never played live [BLZ's note: this confused me for a moment but seems to refer to the fact that the songs weren't performed live before the recording]. That cemented the "closed-room kind of immediacy of that record," Deal says. "Last Splash" was its flipside: The band made demos of the songs and played them live before recording them."
  • Guzman, Isaac "Ready for the 'New' Deals? At last, the Breeders return, indie principles intact" New York Daily News May 26, 2002
  • "Kim Deal, for one, figures that the success of "Last Splash" was a freak. She doesn't expect it to happen again, especially since records by her former band and the Breeders' other records never became hits.
""That was a fluke," Deal says of "Cannonball." "The Pixies never sold [anything]. 'Pod' never sold [anything]. 'Safari' never sold [anything]. 'Title TK' isn't going to sell [anything]. One [bleeping] single sold something. It was an accident.""
  • Puls, Eric "Pixie Kim Deal Now Clicks With New Band, the Breeders" Chicago Sun-Times October 2, 1992
  • "The resulting album, Pod, sold a ton. Produced by Chicagoan Steve Albini, it brings an ersatz strangeness to the songs that leaves them remarkably enticing. Deal's light, gauzy voice meshes with the ultra-bass-heavy instrumentation, and Albini's stripped-down technique helps render blunt the listener's senses."
  • "Sold a ton"? Unfortunately, this doesn't say how much "a ton" is supposed to be. This is from an article at the time of the Safari EP. Seems too cast-off to be useful, really. However, we also learn from this article that in 1992, you could see the Breeders perform live in a major city for the tidy sum of $13.50.
  • Interestingly, this pits the sales of Pod and Last Splash against the Pixies' comparative lack of success. Take with a grain of salt, imo, to describe the commercial success of Pod: this is looking back from 08 and hedges with "artistic and commercial success". Nevertheless, could be interesting for some kind of comparison between the Breeders and Pixies.
"In the context of the Pixies' then declining fortunes, the artistic and commercial success of the Breeders' first two albums - 1990's other-worldly 'Pod' and 1993's euphoric, surging 'Last Splash' - became the foundation stone of a strange, pseudo-feminist mythology."
  • "Although critically acclaimed, "Pod" was generally regarded as a temporary sideshow to the Pixies, another assumption which galled Deal. "I hate side-projects," she explains. "I was just in two bands at the same time."" ...
"... the Breeders are now set to release their second album, "Last Splash." As Kim acknowledges, the new album is "more radio competitive" than the darkly sexual, raw-sounding "Pod."
"At the moment the Breeders are no more than a large cult band. But Nirvana's success has blurred the lines between mainstream and alternative, and Belly's quirky guitar-pop is the latest example of crossover. With the Breeders sitting midway between these extremes, the time could be right for them to translate their credibility into sales."
  • This could be good both for sales and, with Deal's expression of resentment at being considered a "side project", touches on another theme examined further in this next section.
Rivalry/tensions with Pixies/Black Francis
  • McCoy, Heath "Pixies dust off the past: Influential band puts egos, feuds aside for reunion tour" Calgary Herald April 17, 2004
  • "To further complicate things, the band was being torn asunder due to a power struggle between Francis and Deal. Deal had formed a side project called The Breeders as an outlet for her songs, which she was struggling to get on Pixies albums. The critically acclaimed Breeders' album Pod was released at the same time as the Pixies' disappointing Bossanova, which added to the tension."
  • McCoy, Heath "Pixies dust off the past: Influential band puts egos, feuds aside for reunion tour" Calgary Herald April 17, 2004
  • "To further complicate things, the band was being torn asunder due to a power struggle between Francis and Deal. Deal had formed a side project called The Breeders as an outlet for her songs, which she was struggling to get on Pixies albums. The critically acclaimed Breeders' album Pod was released at the same time as the Pixies' disappointing Bossanova, which added to the tension."
  • Valania, Jonathan "An Interplanetary Imagination Keeps the Pixies' World in Orbit" The Morning Call March 7, 1992
  • "On previous releases, Deal's highly regarded lullaby voice provided soft relief from the bone-crunching guitars and Thompson's own hellacious shriek. But she appears less and less on each successive Pixies release. ::"Thompson confirms the pattern. "I guess it's a natural development," he says smugly.
"Why?
""For several reasons I don't want to go into."
"Perhaps in response to her diminishing role in the Pixies, Deal formed The Breeders and released the highly acclaimed "Pod" disc in 1990. Thompson tries to deflect the topic. "I haven't heard it," he says unconvincingly."
  • Black Francis says he hadn't heard Pod two years after its release!!
Reviews
  • Ploetz, Elmer "Sonic Youth Takes Its Wall of Guitars into the Mainstream" The Buffalo News August 24, 1990
  • "The Breeders' 'Pod' (CAD US 0006-1) is easier to categorize: It's state-of-the-art alternative rock aimed straight at the heart of college radio.
The band is a one-shot amalgam of the Pixies' Kim Deal, the Throwing Muses' Tanya Donnelly, Josephine Wiggs of obscure English band Perfect Disaster and session drummer Shannon Doughton (the only male of the group). But with Deal writing most of the songs and doing most of the lead vocals, this women's-night-out effort is really her show.
So how does Deal do out from under the shadow of the Pixies' Black Francis? Not badly. Only Deal and God know what most of the lyrics are supposed to signify, but she sings them as if she means them. And with unusually spare production by alternative rock guitar-monger Steve Albini, the music sounds like a clear descendant of Richard Hell's no-wave anthem, "Blank Generation," from the late '70s."
  • "The Breeders: 'Pod' Recorded in Edinburgh during a Pixies hiatus, "Pod" (4AD/Rough Trade) is the product of a pick-up "super group" featuring Kim Deal, Josephine Wiggs of the English quartet the Perfect Disaster, and Tanya Donnelly of the Throwing Muses, a New England quartet that was the first American band to sign to 4AD. As might be expected of a band that includes two bassists (Wiggs and Deal, though the latter plays guitar here), the emphasis is on rhythm-heavy, slow-grind art-funk-punk of tracks such as the opening "Glorious." Deal, who wrote or co-wrote most of these songs, emulates Black Francis's sense of dynamics, but her work seldom achieves the same sort of ecstatic release when it attempts to break free from the groove. The Breeders' version of the Beatles' "Happiness Is a Warm Gun," for example, ranges not from intense to mysterious, but merely from loud and harsh to soft and less harsh.
Still, Deal has learned some tricks from Francis. Such terse, edgy throbbers as "Hellbound" and "Opened" would have qualified for the earlier Pixies platters, and the swinging, trebly "Lime House" actually busts loose. At its best, though, "Pod" just barely achieves Pixiedom. Perhaps it would seem more compelling if it had been released in the midst of a drought, but since it arrived just a few months before "Bossanova," the album is likely to attract only the most fervent of Pixies partisans."
  • Sullivan, Jim "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll Awards: Cheers for Pop's Heroes, Jeers for Its Villains" The Boston Globe December 28, 1990
  • "Best Off-Shoot Project: The Breeders. For Kim Deal of the Pixies and Tanya Donnelly of Throwing Muses, "Pod" was a thorny surprise, positioned somewhere between bittersweet pop and tortured pop."
  • Reviewing the Breeders' set opening for Nirvana at the Lakeland Civic Center, now the RP Funding Center:
"The Breeders, led by twins Kim and Kelley Deal, was well-received, though the band lost many of the intricacies of its splendid albums Pod and Last Splash in the dense mix, which also tended to drown out Kim Deal's raspy vocals."
Donelly, or miscellaneous
  • Boehm, Mike "Throwing Muses Aren't Blowing Fuses: A Band Known for Raw, Harrowing Musical Psychodramas Overcomes Personal, Professional Problems" Los Angeles Times May 23, 1991
  • "Donelly's own plans call for relocating to London after the Muses' current tour, and starting work on a second album by the Breeders, an all-female band that also includes Kim Deal of the Pixies. ...
"On the Breeders' debut album, "Pod," Donelly was even more in the background than she is with Throwing Muses. But she said the plan calls for her to switch roles with Deal and to assume the spotlight on the second album."
  • Thought this was interesting since, obviously, Donelly left and formed her own band.
  • The two paragraphs beginning "When Kim was 25..." and "That led to Pod..."
A lot of it is restatement of things you already have, but peep some of the descriptions of the music and the Kim-Kelley dynamic.
Bonus Title TK zone
  • Sperounes, Sandra "Kim gets the last laugh: The Breeders are poised to make a new Splash with Title TK" The Edmonton Journal May 18, 2002
  • This one might be good for Title TK, actually. A particularly good quote from Kim:
""ProTools is like sound bouncing off glass," says Kim. "There's no depth to it. Good lord. That's not me. Just play the music and run the tape. There's no way I'm sitting in front of a computer. First of all, it doesn't really exist. You can never really record anything. It's like plugging a bass guitar into a calculator. A calculator does nothing but give you a value -- $2.95 doesn't exist in the dimension of time. The dimension of time takes distance. There is no distance in a computer. There is no time in a computer.""
Also, after detailing drug problems and the lukewarm reception to the Amps' Pacer: "Then Cannonball, with its unmistakable bass intro, showed up in a Nissan Sentra commercial, all but spelling the end of The Breeders. Or so we thought."
Also, calls Title TK "one of the most anticipated reunions of the year -- and perhaps only less exciting than a Pixies patch-up. (It ain't gonna happen.)" lol

Oh My Golly, BLZ, so much stuff here! Thank you so much. I definitely want to find some stuff in here to use so that your efforts don’t go to waste. But I’m going to need a few days to digest all this and figure out the most usable bits. Moisejp (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to use these most likely (about Pods’ sales, etc.), still going through the others:

  • Taylor, Sam (September 12, 1993). "The Cusp of Fame: Living Rock Fuels the Breeders". Calgary Herald – via Westlaw. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Murphy, Lauren (June 14, 2013). "Breeder's Digest". The Irish Times – via Westlaw. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Guzman, Isaac (May 26, 2002). "Ready for the 'New' Deals? At last, the Breeders return, indie principles intact". New York Daily News – via Westlaw. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

More:

Hey BLZ, would you possibly be able to look at this source in Rock's Backpages? [[17]] From how it's used in the Pixies article (ref 29), it looks like there could very possibly some good specifics about (according to Santiago) "Deal as being "headstrong and want[ing] to include her own songs, to explore her own world" on the band's albums; eventually she accepted that Francis was the singer and had musical control of the band"; maybe there's stuff in the article that supports the argument (which as we know Deal has often denied) that Deal needed the Breeders as a creative outlet since she didn't get it in the Pixies. Moisejp (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is a good source too. I knew I'd seen this anecdote somewhere before and now found it: [[18]] "While a couple of Pixies songs were co-written by Francis and Deal (“Silver,” “Gigantic”), the vast majority of the catalog was written solely by Francis. “I remember just one time this even came up,” he says. “She came to rehearsal out of the blue and said, ‘I have a bunch of songs.’ This has never been previously discussed. We played them and said, ‘This sounds way different than our other stuff.’ She was like, ‘Okay, fine.'” "

Hi again BLZ and Ceoil. All right, I believe I've added all the new content we discussed here; of course feel free to copy-edit my latest additions. The very latest addition is from User:Moisejp/sandbox#Breeders_as_creative_outlet_to_offset_Deal's_diminishing_role_in_Pixies?. There are a bunch of quotes there. Let me know if you'd like me to change the nuance at all based on all the quotes I've got there (or other sources you may know of). Also, earlier BLZ pointed me to Acclaimed.net [[19]] with some rankings, etc. I added a couple of them that seemed especially useful and that I could find a reliable source for. If there are others you particularly would like to see (and a reliable source exists), let me know. One I would be interested in is Alternative Press (USA) - Top 99 Albums of '85 to '95 (1995)—this was actually in the article when I started editing it, but the only source I can find is http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk, which I don't think passes reliability standards, so i removed it. But if you know a way of reliably sourcing this, I'd be interested.

Assuming there are no other issues in the article that can't be fixed quickly, I'm going to go ahead with my final stage of the preparation, which is to go through the article line by line to check for coherency/consistency, as well as checking that all statements are true to the sources (I checked this before first bringing it to PR, but with so much activity and lots of people providing input, it can sometimes happen that the nuance of info can stray from what's in the source). And once that's done, I'll be excited to bring this to FAC. Thanks again both of you for the huge help you have been in PR. Moisejp (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I'll give it a look. I've embedded the relevant portion of that RBP article in a hidden comment right after this sentence.
I can't find anything for that Alternative Press list. Sadly true of a lot of Acclaimed Music accolades, which are often sourced from magazines that are out-of-print and not archived online. I don't doubt their veracity, they're just so inaccessible. I would kill for a complete, searchable Melody Maker archive. Related both to retrospective acclaim and Pixies conflicts: this book Gimme Indie Rock: 500 Essential American Underground Rock Albums 1981–1996 names Pod one of the "500 Essential American Underground Rock Albums 1981–1996", per its title, and the author speculates a little about Deal feeling shut out from the Pixies. (The album's mistakenly referred to as The Pod, an error that the same author seems to have repeated in a blurb he contributed to Kurt Cobain and Nirvana: The Complete Illustrated History.) I think it's good that you've pursued the Pixies narrative a little more: it connects some dots for readers who may know more about Deal's contributions to that band, and it fits nicely with rock archetypes—Deal is very much the George Harrison of the Pixies, imo. —BLZ · talk 01:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, food for thought: have you considered adding a second audio sample? "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" might be a good choice. I don't think you could achieve a more clear demonstration of the album's overall sound than using that cover. Lots of people know the original song, and that familiarity/contrast allows listeners to focus on the pertinent elements of pure Breeders "sound": the commanding drums, the soft/harsh guitar, Deal's vox. At 2:47, you could use a 16-second sample from the song—I think 0:07–0:23 would be a good portion to sample, but there are plenty of other bits that could be used too. —BLZ · talk 02:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea. I likely could add another one (likely "HIAWG") but I'd need to come up with a good well-written and -sourced caption that justifies the sample's presence in the article. I definitely wouldn't want the second audio sample to feel superfluous. I'll let that idea ferment at the back of my mind while I work on my coherency/source review, and see what I may be able to come up with later. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friends. I've now added all the suggested new content, including a sound clip for "Happiness Is a Warm Gun", and I've finished my coherency/source check. Well, what do you think, is it ready for FAC? If it's better that I leave the peer review open a little longer (for example, if you think there's still copy-edits you'd like to do on the newer content) I can. Or if you think any further suggestions or edits you'd want to make are minor enough that they could wait for FAC, I'll go ahead and close this peer review. Just let me know, thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mosie, I would be very pleased if you went ahead and nomed at this stage. Thank for all the work and diligent responses. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Pod_(The_Breeders_album)/archive1&oldid=1136449306"