This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Kinks, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.The KinksWikipedia:WikiProject The KinksTemplate:WikiProject The KinksThe Kinks articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
Could one of these be added? This song is very poppy: it's a very upbeat, melodic, light-hearted, major-key, inoffensive pop tune that isn't strong on rock instrumentation. So any thoughts on "Pop" or "Pop rock" being added? Or maybe even "Baroque pop" due to the song's use of harpsichord and strings. 86.142.177.11 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOR. You should be looking at published reviews, not listening and deciding yourself.Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest splitting this section into one for background and recording then another for composition and lyrics, as it is too large and at the moment, so place the appropriate content into a para of each section
I tried reorganizing things as Background and composition and Recording, with subsections for music and lyrics in the former. I think it's best to keep it ordered chronologically, detailing the song's writing, its content and then its recording.
I think this would be better if you had a section for background and recording followed by one for comp and lyrics, wouldn't that work? --K. Peake 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched it to your suggestion. How does that look? As tangent on this subject, here's a comment I left during the first FAN of "I've Just Seen a Face": Since WikiProject Songs doesn't provide much guidance in the way of article layout, I've based this article on some of the many Beatles related GAs, such as "Think for Yourself". As for FAs, I've seen it done this way at "Something", whereas "Hey Jude" uses the format you mention. I like it better with the composition described first, since it moves things along chronologically, with the song being written before recorded.Tkbrett (✉) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"later said" does not work when there is no previously specified date/period
Specified year.
"particularly its melody and" → "particularly the melody and"
"Musically, he writes the song" → "Musically, he writes "Starstruck""
This is now the start of a section, so I rewrote it as Rogan writes the song musically displays...
I still think it would be better with the title, as you are describing the musical style and it begins a section. --K. Peake 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"suggests it was inspired by American musician" → "suggests the song was inspired by musician"
"released the twelve-track edition" → "released the 12-track edition" per MOS:NUM
I believe it's fine by MOS:NUMERAL: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words
"with fifteen tracks" → "with 15 tracks"
See above.
"described "Starstruck"'s use" → "described the song's use"
Done.
Mention when the West Europe release was
Sources unfortunately don't specify beyond November 1968 for the Netherlands and 8 or 15 January 1969 for the US. Looking at when the single first appeared in different charts isn't an option either since the song didn't chart anywhere besides the Netherlands.
"to the US release" → "to the United States release"
"United States release" sounds a little awkward to my ear. How about "American release"?
Yes, that reads better than either! --K. Peake 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"which initially lead" → "which initially led"
Whoops! Fixed.
Shouldn't the inclusion in Last Night in Soho's soundtrack be mentioned here?
I originally couldn't find a source that mentioned its inclusion beyond a simple accounting of the track listing, but now I've found a piece in Den of Geek to help include it in the body.
Are you sure handclaps should be listed in this section when the player is unidentified? They can still stay in prose either way.
In detailing the Kinks' working process, Andy Miller writes the band added extra percussion as part of the rhythm track (p. 21) and for "Starstruck" he writes it includes a the band's "familiar line-up", including handclaps, so I definitely think it goes here. To put it under "Additional musician(s)" would be to make a leap not asserted by the source.
I see that Backbeat has gone through a couple owners. Rowman & Littlefield bought it from Hal Leonard LLC in 2018 and Hal Leonard acquired it from CMP in 2006. Hinman's book was published in 2004, so shouldn't it instead pipe to CMP?
With the given context, yes CMP would be better. --K. Peake 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; another nice article here though! --K. Peake 08:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for another nice review, Kyle Peake. Changes and comments are above. Tkbrett (✉) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tkbrett Cheers for the speedy response again and I have left comments back to you above, also the release sentence should come before composition in the lead. --K. Peake 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tkbrett✓Pass once again and regarding the order for info, I think recording can be merged with either background or comp depending on the context. --K. Peake 20:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks K. Peake. I again appreciate your comments and ideas. Tkbrett (✉) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; another nice article here though! --K. Peake 08:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)