Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Reviews

There's an effort at WT:External links#Professional_reviews_2 to ban any and all links to professional reviews of music and other creative works in ==External links==. If you have an opinion, please consider sharing it at that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Major issues to resolve

The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):

• It has been suggested that contemporary music and contemporary classical music be merged, but no consensus has been reached as to which way.
• The article 21st-century classical music is contentious. It is claimed that the title is not the proper name for this period and that the article's subject properly belongs in contemporary music/contemporary classical music. (Note that I wrote the article, in good faith, following up on a suggestion.)
• 20th-century classical music appears to end in 1980, or so, despite the period defined in the Periods of European art music box.
• None of the articles fully expore the music of the period in question.

Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.

Thank you for your input. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve. --Deskford (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify these instruments?

Hi, could anyone knowledgeable of Western musical instruments identify these instruments? File:London-Victoria and Albert Museum-Musical instrument-01.jpg and File:London-Victoria and Albert Museum-Musical instrument-02.jpg Thanks.-Caspian blue 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Charting question

Do you consider charting only on sub-charts, like Heatseekers or genre specific charts, to meet the criteria for "charting nationally"? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I, myself, have never had a problem with charts such as the Heatseekers chart being mentioned on wikipedia's album articles. Of course, they may break some rules of wikipedia and I may not know it. My initial response would be to keep the Heatseeker chart positions on the pages, but if something pops up that definitely proves that it breaks wikipedia guidelines, then I won't hesitate in stating that it should be removed. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• My question isn't so much about mentioning the charting on something like Heatseekers or genre specific charts, but do they count as "charting" for establishing notability under WP:MUSICBIO? Heatseekers, for example, is only for artists that have never appeared in the Top 100 of the Billboard 200 chart. So you can have someone who has never done that great commercially, being compared to others that haven't peaked that high and "chart" as #49 of 50 on a chart of people who haven't enjoyed big commercial success.....and call that notable since they "charted". I guess I'm looking at it kind of cynically. To me, either you made the "real list" (the Billboard 200) or you didn't. Maybe I'm wrong and that's why I'm here asking for input. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a definitive answer for this question. One of the points at WP:MUSICBIO for notability states: Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. The Heaterseekers chart is definitely a music chart, but the issue seems to be "national". Is a national chart the main charts like the Billboard 200 or does that include the other charts that are used, like Top Country Albums, Top Rap Albums and Heatseekers Albums? If a recording artist or band meets another point in criteria, they're probably notable, but based on an album charting on the Heatseekers chart alone is up to debate. — Σxplicit 04:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would think that a chart that excludes albums that are selling better wouldn't be considered the yardstick to measure notability with. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "Any national music chart" includes subordinate charts such as the Heatseekers chart. WP:MUSICBIO guidelines are intended to prevent the proliferation of numerous articles about little local bands which may be virtually unknown outside their own city or whatever, not to exclude genuinely popular and notable artists who have a significant following despite never really making it big. Of course, if a song/ album then goes on to reach the main Billboard chart then its performance in the Heatseekers chart is redundant information which will no longer belong in the article. Further guidance on including charts in articles can be found at WP:CHARTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contains Mild Peril (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Music genre issue

I've started a discussion topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_genres#Genre_as_a_life_of_its_own ...looking for feedback, thanks. - Steve3849 ^talk 10:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sly & the Family Stone

I have nominated Sly & the Family Stone for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for page moves?

Anyone know if there is consensus for all these page moves [1]? Just curious. Seems like drastic action. Wknight94 ^talk 21:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me. Why would we want lists of music from just 2 countries on opposite sides of the world? How would a list with a restriction like that, be useful to anyone? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's mostly what I thought too. I reverted those moves. Wknight94 ^talk 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of reverting them Wknight94, you could have checked:

{{Globalize}}

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias which was noted in my editing comments. That appears to be consensus.

The entire series of xxxx in Music should be corrected to xxxx in Popular American and British Music to more accurately reflect the systemic bias caused by listing extensively the work and history of American and British rock and pop artists. Lookskywatcher (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the link you provided, and I didn't see any coverage of the "#### in music" topics. Can you provide a link directly to that discussion and its consensus? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The way you should go about eliminating systemic bias is to edit the articles in question. Moving all of those articles lends a (possibly exceptional) amount of weight to the other articles' topics. The problem really is that you perhaps too boldy initiated the moves. When you've got a big project, most editors like a note and a chat about it before initiation. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Singles VS EPs

I've started a discussion on a Singles VS EP's case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Singles VS EPs. Any feedback would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Music Project

The Contemporary Music Project has been revived.

Covering the past 50 years or so, this project concentrates on music variously described as 'New', 'Postmodernist' or 'Contemporary classical'.

New editors and contributors will be most welcome. The project page is here. --Kleinzach 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian rock genre

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Switchfoot#RfC:Should "Christian rock" be a genre?, which I believe addresses issues beyond the scope of the individual article, so I thought I would let people know here. —Akrabbim^talk 05:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of Source Information needed.

Okay, so I have a user here who believes that certain information involving Art rock, Psychedelic rock, Progressive rock are reliable and should be in there. However, there are a few other users who don't think so and accordingly reverted his edits each time. Because he is not a native speaker of English (he's Brazilian), it is possible that it may simply be poor formatting that made the edits look like original research. He has left his sources on my talk page for verification. However, because I am currently unable to access all but a handful of select sites, could someone look them over for me?--Twilight Helryx 13:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre Project

Was hoping some people might be interested in restarting Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_genres, I think it's long past due that a group of editors started aggressively cleaning up genre articles. Ridernyc (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's okay, I think I could join the project. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, once I have a chance I'll get the project going again. 01:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to the project, but would it be possible to focus on Popular (i.e. non-classical) music and define its scope in that way? Genre in classical music and opera has complex historical and cultural aspects that would be best left out of the music genre spectrum as envisioned by WikiProject Music genres. Thanks for your understanding. --Kleinzach 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah not really talking about anything other then popular music. Dealing with all the original research and endless splitting of articles into overlapping sub-genres. Ridernyc (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a very beneficial discussion (an RfC, actually) that took place at Talk:Switchfoot that talked about the validity of Christian rock as a genre, which I think could be something that the project could address. —Akrabbim^talk 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If I had to make a rough guess I would say 80-90% of the genre articles on Wikipedia would fail to meet various policies, everything from to broad to stuff that was made up in school one day. First goal would be to make it clear everything needs to be sourced. Then we move on to working up some guidelines,cleaning articles, merging articles. Ridernyc (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible removal of reviews from album infobox

There is currently an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Reviews in infobox: scrap? regarding the potential removal of the "Professional reviews" field from {{Infobox album}}. Input from Music Project members would be welcome there. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder: voting closes 14 December

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog

The backlog at GAN is starting to get out of hand, with 50+ pending noms. I doubt the ordinary reviewer body could handle such a huge backload speedily so I'm wondering if some of you guys could help bring it under control. ResMar 21:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images/Opera Babes

I noticed that User:Aspects has removed many images of album covers from articles about bands. My analysis of the fair use guidelines is that an album cover can be used, as long as 1. There is no separate article about the album that already used the cover; and 2. there is substantial discussion and commentary about the album in the band's article. Feel free to discuss this here. If others agree, feel free to explore Aspects' contributions and try to save the appropriate images that qualify under the fair use guidelines. I have alerted Aspects to this discussion. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We should also note the 'No free equivalent' clause from WP:NFC: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." --Kleinzach 03:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, always a necessary requirement, although these album covers will rarely have a free equivalent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we're talking about artist articles, not album articles, I think Kleinzach meant that if we're using the album cover as a substitute for a picture of the artist, we could do better. If the article contains enough info about an album cover to warrant the inclusion of a picture, there is probably justification to create an article for the album, and move the picture there. Regarding the concern about Aspects' work, I do notice he is taking the time to put tags in articles, notify users, etc., which is much better than the similar project to remove "second cover" illustrations a year ago, which got on people's nerves because it was done with minimal notification. (Even if you had uploaded the picture yourself and were watching the article, you wouldn't get any hint the picture was removed until "clean-up" a week after the image had been deleted, and the IFDs were done pretty much secretly.) It's nice to see it being done responsibly this time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the album covers I have removed recently fall into one of two categories against Wikipedia:Non-free content: 1) The album cover is in the infobox to represent the artist/band and not the album itself or 2) The album cover is in a discography section. A few then are used in the article prose with no mention in the article or not enough critical commentary (i.e. year they were released and/or peak chart positions), also against Wikipedia:Non-free content. Feel free to go through my contributions and let me know if I have erred in removing an album cover. Aspects (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The album cover that I am concerned with is at Opera Babes, and I believe that the image and its accompanying discussion comply with the fair use guidelines. Aspects has now nominated the image for deletion, and you can comment at that discussion here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Question/diminished unison

Maybe this isn't the right place to ask: if so, I'm sorry. But is there such a thing as a diminished unison? ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be able to get a better answer if you ask at one of the reference desks. —Akrabbim^talk 15:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked about this at WP:CM --Jubilee♫clipman 15:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

(I am not sure how active the Theory project is so I post this here and at WP:CM)

Diminished unison should be merged into Semitone. See Talk:Semitone#Merge_Diminished_unison for more. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Complement (music)

Request review of this article. I can't make head nor tail of the final section... See the comments on the talk page. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed your little Oddyssey there. I agree with much of what you say. I also have a lot of respect for Hyacinth's work, while noting that s/he sometimes tends to write from a position of arcane knowledge, pursuing complexities before establishing the simplicities. Someone coming like you fresh can help. I think it's best to involve H here, and it will involve review of the whole field of serial terminology. Hmmm - good title for a list or glossary, but how to categorise it?? Redheylin (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that oddyssey is over by far... H and I have had another very recent altercation relating to a merger proposal and I suspect he and I will sort this out amicably. Perhaps I am coming on bit strong at the moment, though! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Two orphans about the same thing and a weird term: Changing tone, Neighbor group, nonchord tone

• Changing tone
• Neighbor group

These describe the same thing, viz. a group of nonchord tones as Wiki has it... Several things here: what is the point of these first two articles; why both; who uses the term nonchord tone? Most important of all, why are all the following articles redirected to that page?

1. Suspension (music)
2. Harmonic suspension
3. Neighbor tone
4. Passing tone
5. Non-harmony note
6. Auxilliary note
7. Passing note
8. Chord tone
9. Anticipation
10. Suspended tone
11. Neighboring tone
12. Hilfsklang
13. Auxiliary tone
14. Auxiliary note
15. Escape tone
16. Echappée
17. Escape note
18. Neighbor note
19. Neighbour note
20. Neighbour tone
21. Nonharmonic
22. Echappee
23. Non-chord tone
24. Nonharmonic tone
25. Passing notes
26. Neighbour-note
27. Neighbouring harmony
28. Retardation (music)

That is, why don't they have separate articles? Suspension certainly could!

Furthermore, very few of the linked artices actually use the term except inside piped links or in one of the templates such as Template:Consonance and dissonance. Suggests to me that the term is rarely used... I would say non-harmony note/tone. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This IS a terminology article! Redheylin (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

HAHA! Good point... --Jubilee♫clipman 06:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I just Googled all the terms I could think of and "non-chord tone" came out top. Note the hyphen though: perhaps the real name has a hyphen? And perhaps this is an American term which is becoming more and more universal? See my ramble at the talk page... --Jubilee♫clipman 06:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mellotron Heart has been suggested to be merged into Porcelain Heart

An anonymous user has requested that Mellotron Heart be merged into Porcelain Heart. The above poster had this to say on my talkpage:

“ Okay- I just did a little thinking about this, after the overwhelming indifference in all applicable pages. Mellotron Heart is the same song as Porcelain Heart. Basically an Opeth cover. So it really should be merged into Porcelain Heart, much like how other cover versions are mentioned in the original song's article. Of course that doesn't really solve answer the category question, but it's something. ”

I think that the Mellotron Heart merge to Porcelain Heart wouldn't be a bad idea, considering that the Mellotron Heart page does not have much information about its assigned topic. However, I do not want to do that just yet, because I would want a consensus to be made. Any thoughts? You can post it on this talk page, the talk page of any other wikiproject I post this in, or the talk page of Mellotron Heart or Porcelain Heart.

Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 05:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition of 2010 in music

Can someone help me with maintaining the 2010 in music pages? (2010 in American music, 2010 in British and Irish music, 2010 in Canadian music, 2010 in European music) I completely redid the main page and it looks nicer now as I formatted it with the same style as the 2010 in television page, and created regionalized pages. I can already tell that I cannot maintain all of the pages by myself. Any assistance would be nice. Thank You (Tigerghost (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

Are these strictly allowed given that these events are yet to happen...? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I've just reviewed that section of WP:WWIN and it seems there is room for these articles after all. However, most of those articles are simply lists of albums etc that are scheduled for release: doesn't this come perilously close to advertising? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is an archive much similar to the 2009, 2008, and preceding music pages. These pages promote nothing. Also, as these events have yet to occur, we eliminate the Crystal ball by only posting "scheduled" events, releases, ect... I may point out that there are many pages devoted to future happenings such as the page on the year of 2017, 2010 in film, 2010 in television to name a few. If Wikipedia were to hold stricter measures, then I suggest that all pages devoted to every film yet to be released be deleted, every year yet to occur be deleted, as well as every reference to future events such as the United States presidential election, 2012. Obviously, maintaining 2010 in American music, 2010 in European music, 2010 in Canadian music, and 2010 in British and Irish music will be subject to much maintenance. I have already reverted previous posts by new users who see fit to already declare what the top-20 songs of the year will be. Patrolling these pages will exhaust much of my time alone, but if I can get some help with it, I'd be very thankful. Regionalizing the primary 2010 in music page was a good idea, as the previous international page was cluttered beyond belief, disorganized, and many bands who were widely known in one part of the world are culturally unknown in others. This is a titanic task, and I would very much like those music pages added to the WikiProject music family. (Tigerghost (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Ah, that makes more sense now. I think was looking at one of the pages with a predicted top 20 on it... If you are willing to patrol these pages with help from others then great. I'll add it them to my watchlist and do-to lists too but note that I'm heavily involved in various other projects, too, such as the Contemporary music project --Jubilee♫clipman 05:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)