Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Steinway Model D-274

Back in June, I created an article called Steinway Model D-274. However, after discussion, it was decided that the content should be removed and the page be turned into a redirect. I feel that this page, with work, could be considered to be an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Currently, I have a copy of the page in my userspace (User:Pianoplonkers/Steinway Model D-274) and I am trying to improve it. I am writing to ask if anyone would like to help me achieve this and make it a good article. Please contact me on my talk page to inform me that I have found someone that wants to help me. Thanks--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 07:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I would say that it is a fine article. Some additional sources could be used, but that isn't the biggest probem here. I think the assemblage of the "facts & figures" and "encasement" sections are not up to wikipedia's standards, due to their format. The title of the former section is especially not to wikipedia's standards; while it is not trivia (considering how it holds information about the measurements and other useful stuff), it does have the title of a section of miscellaneous information; those sections are definitely discouraged on wikipedia. If I came across this article in its current shape as an article and not just a user subpage, I would support its existence on wikipedia, but improvements would be recommended. Thanks. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help from someone who can read music

Hello, I have a request for anyone who can read music and has the music notes software. I'm trying to do some work on the composition section in "City of Blinding Lights". What I have so far from the music notes software (here) is "City of Blinding Lights" is played in a key of A-major at a speed of 139 BPM in common time. The vocals range from F♯4 to A7." What I think I need now is a chord sequence, the kind of tempo it is played at, and more specific vocal ranges throughout the song. The article recently passed GA and I'd really like to get it up to FA; but with what I have so far I think that just isn't possible. Any help that can be provided at all with this would be very much appreciated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of free notation programs or evaluation versions of commercial programs available; see List of scorewriters. I'm not sure how anybody here could help you with the notation exercise without buying the score.

Comment: Are you sure about that vocal range? That's about 3 1/2 octaves, and the top note is on the eighth ledger line above a staff with a treble clef (see Scientific pitch notation) – that's an octave + a third above the highest note in "Der Hölle Rache", an aria often quoted as requiring the highest notes in the operatic repertoire. I find "F♯4 to A7" hard to believe, both in range and in pitch. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm checking out some of programs you linked to see if they can help. I don't expect anyone to buy the score of course; this is just a query for those who might already have it. I'm not sure about the vocal range at all actually. It's what I was told on my talk page by another user (who is also not very good at reading music). It's more likely that it refers to the guitar and piano in the introduction. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For musical analysis such as this, you'll need to quote a suitable WP:RS, i.e, a music critic. (See Hey Jude#Musical_structure for an example.) If you do it yourself, that constitutes WP:OR. This is illustrated by MoS, which advises, "Only basic information pertaining to a piece, such as track length or stereo placement, may be left to an editor or editors' ears". There's some interesting software out there but as far as the article's concerned, I think your efforts will need to be diverted to finding a suitable source. PL290 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks; I'll try and see if I scrounge up any more information that's floating around. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the sheet music (and I can't read it anyway), but http://www.musicnotes.com/ lists 2 versions: one with Voice, range: Db4-C6 and another which includes backing vocals and claims it's for Voice, range: F#4-A7. I would suggest that the latter can safely be ignored.

One of the confusing things about musicnotes.com is that some vocal ranges are given in scientific pitch notation and some in a different system where the octaves are numbered one higher, e.g. C6 is "soprano high C" (2 octaves above Middle C) in scientific pitch notation, but "tenor high C" (1 octave above Middle C) in the alternative notation system. Another confusing thing about musicnotes.com is that occasionally it's just plain wrong.

If we assume that the ranges quoted above use the higher octave numbers, even A6 is still implausible: that would be an extremely high note, well beyond the range of most sopranos. I may be missing something, but I don't think I heard any such extreme notes in the backing vocals. Perhaps they've erroneously quoted an instrumental range there?

If we "translate" D♭4-C6 to D♭3-C5 in scientific pitch notation, we then have something a bit more plausible: a range of just under 2 octaves for the lead vocal, topping at tenor high C. I don't know if this is correct but it doesn't sound too far-fetched. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That definitely sounds a lot more plausible considering that Bono is a tenor. Thanks very much for that; it looks like the one that I had was for instrumentation after all. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oxjam

I've just done a massive cleanup of the Oxjam article and noticed that it isn't included in any music-related WikiProjects yet. I was hoping that a member of the project could go have a look at it and tag it for inclusion so that it can be tracked, expanded, and updated in the future. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice of requested move for music-related page

I nominated the article Pitchfork 500 : Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present to be moved to the simpler name The Pitchfork 500. Further explanation can be found at the talk page. Please add input if you are interested. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kid Icarus (band)

I'd appreciate other editors' opinions as to whether this band, and by extension the articles on its various albums, meet notability guidelines? Not much there to support significance, but perhaps notability and unreferenced templates will suffice. Thanks, 99.11.4.55 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This king of sums it up [1], total of 32 plays over the last 6 months on last.fm. Even the most obscure bands will have hundreds of listens. Ridernyc (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have prod'd all the band and album articles and also prod'd the article for the record label. All of them created by the same user. Ridernyc (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

An administrator already ruled in favor of notability of the artist a year ago. That was based on the fact that Spin magazine found them significant enough to write about them. It might be better to check how many plays they had during that time period. Lack of a recent impact does not refute notability. Matt Johnson's performance on last.fm is comparable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindofdavish (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The role of MUSTARD

WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD (the latter as part of WP:MoS) are ostensibly in an "umbrella" role to all music-related projects. Over time, I've gained the impression that we don't really seem to maximize MUSTARD's potential in that role. This impression is occasionally reinforced by incidental remarks on music project talk pages (such as this) and the lack of any real quorum presence in any discussions that do arise at MUSTARD (such as this). I invite firstly confirmation from others that my impression is generally shared, and secondly suggestions about ways of improving the situation. PL290 (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with the first link, which charactarizes MUSTARD as "a reminant from years ago" that "isn't updated much these days". In fact I have seen quite a lot of work done in reformatting and reorganizing it in the last year, so it certainly hasn't been abandoned. The second link seems to be about a comment I made, saying that instructions on how to use fields in an infobox template belong in the template's instructions, not MUSTARD, in response to a proposal to move or copy/duplicate instructions about one field into MUSTARD. This was not in any sense a put-down of MUSTARD. Regarding the criticism that MUSTARD isn't updated very often, there is nothing wrong with that, it just means it has reached "stability". It is frequently used as a reference, or even a "bible" where questions and disputes are raised. It does not get updated as often as infoboxes, because many users want to "fiddle" with the infobox fields, and they are welcome to do so. But for those of us who recognize that an infobox is just a summary of an article, and is not as important as some people seem to think, it's the guideline for content and formatting of the article that is important, and that is MUSTARD. And, of course, MOS, to which MUSTARD is essentially a supplement.

Having said all that, may I ask, do you have a proposal about changes to MUSTARD as a whole (i.e. are you suggesting a large overhaul or replacement, as per the first link's comment), or do you have a dispute with a certain section of it? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be more publicised through the individual projects. As a relatively new recruit to WP:CTM I had been unaware of WP:MUSTARD until you drew attention to it here, but it looks a very useful set of guidelines. Indeed I have just used one of its recommendations to back up an edit to Rebecca Saunders. --Deskford (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Any guide, including MOS, is usually unknown to beginners. Most editors begin by diving in and writing or changing articles going by intuition, or copying what they see in similar articles. I did that myself at first. We do try to advertise MOS by putting it in a "greeting" template on new user talk pages, but it's probably not possible to advertise a guideline for specific subject matter to newbies -- unless MUSTARD were to be integrated as part of MOS, but I believe MOS doesn't officially acknowledge or endorse MUSTARD. This is not considered a problem; MOS doesn't endorse other topic guidelines either, with the exception of BLP (Biography of Living Persons) because its rules are strictly enforced for legal reasons. I suspect most users keen on editing music articles discover MUSTARD before they discover the music WikiProjects, so I'm not sure if using the projects to advertise it would do much good. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A great way to 'advertise' any guideline is to simply cite it in your edit summaries (i.e. tweaked format per WP:MUSTARD). Following similar links was how I discovered most guidelines and policies. J04n(talk page) 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. If we refer to it in edit summaries and talk page discussions that will bring it to the attention of everyone, new or established. --Deskford (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

MUSTARD brings together the various guidelines developed by the (considerably) disparate music projects. It's potentially very useful as a way of exploring common editorial ground, avoiding projects duplicating the effort of creating copy-editing rules. MUSTARD may eventually migrate upwards to form part of the MoS but that would require a lot of patient effort (and doubtless a lot of frustration) that perhaps most of us would probably prefer to avoid, at least for now. --Klein zach 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota FAR

Hello everyone! I am dropping a note here to let anyone who is interested know that there is currently a FAR ongoing for the article Music of Minnesota. The FAR can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Minnesota/archive1. The review is already into the voting stage, and extensive work has been done to bring the article back to FA status. At this point, the article needs more eyes on it, comments on what could be improved, and, most of all, some editors with expertise in the content are to provide feedback on comprehensiveness and whether the sources meet the "high quality" requirement needed by FAs. I would love to see one (or more) music experts comment on this article - please stop by and leave as few or as many comments as you may have on the FAR page. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories for 'creative works' - music, visual arts, literature etc.

Please see this discussion at the Arts Project about reorganizing high-level categories for 'art works', including compositions, songs and albums. The intention is to make it easier for projects to look after large sets of articles. Thank you. --Klein zach 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see specific proposals. This discussion potentially affects songwriters and albums, as well as classical music compositions. --Klein zach 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rebetiko discography and performers

Hi, I'm looking for input on a discussion regarding the inclusion of a performers and discography section in the article on the music genre Rebetiko. Please contribute to the discussion here. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of paragraphs in BLPs that lack inline citations: the second BLP Rfc

Are members of the Music Project aware of the second BLP Rfc occasioned by the large-scale removal of so-called 'unreferenced, but not necessarily contentious' material from biographies of living people? This is a development that has come out of the BLP article deletion controversy.

In some cases the articles have been decimated. One music-related example is Spoonie Gee (cut down from 3,470 to 1,089 bytes, see here and subsequent edit war), also Sam Sweeney (1,767 down to 593 bytes, see here) but there are probably many others.

An ANI discussion resulted (see UnitAnode and BLP content deletions), which in turn led to an Rfc on Biographies of living people/Content which started on 3 February. (Note the pro-deletion View by Kevin and the (essentially) anti-deletion View by Sandstein, View by Rd232, and View by SoWhy.)

This issue will directly affects all of us who write about modern music. I urge everyone to take note, and if possible, express an opinion at the Rfc. Thank you. --Klein zach 08:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't intend for replies to be posted here, but I do see that the RFC page clearly states (in red text): "This view relates specifically to new/infant articles and does not apply to unsourced BLPs more than two weeks old", which does not cover the 2 articles you have provided as examples, these showing removal of content from old articles. Re. the RFC, I have never seen such a civil discussion on Wikipedia! It's a long page with many contributors, but everyone appears to be presenting their views without arguing against what others say. I note that every mini-essay is followed by a section of support, with almost no nay-saying. I also note that many respondants agree with just about everything being said, which tells me these aren't really "for" and "against" arguments so much as clarifying the rules without getting personal about it. Great! Regarding the 2 articles you called attention to, the "edit war" on the first isn't much of a war; an anon IP has reverted several times with no edit summary; he and the deleting editor are the only recent contributors. The deleting editor is fully justified in undoing the IP's restoration. There may be good arguments for restoring the older versions, but that needs to be discussed on those talk pages first. There has been no discussion at either page. I note that the deleted content in both cases was a mixture of "facts" and opinion, and the removal of the latter appears to be justified. I wonder if the editor removed "facts" along with opinion because he just didn't want to take the time separating them out. If you are concerned about these particular articles, perhaps you could propose re-inserting the non-controversial parts (even without citation); you might get agreement. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see UnitAnode and BLP content deletions to understand more about the background to this. Also note that the disclaimer in red "This view relates specifically to new/infant articles and does not apply to unsourced BLPs more than two weeks old" relates specifically to the first 'view' not the others. There's quite a lot to read but I think it's worth it. I don't intend to get personally involved in the two articles I gave as examples, as they are outside my area of interest/competence. --Klein zach 11:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chart Positions

Don't know if this has been asked already, but how can I find the chart position of a song or album that has been released, but is no longer in the UK chart? Thanks. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 09:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOODCHARTS—Iknow23 (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving your post to the bottom of the page, which is where new topics should go. Posts at the top are likely to be overlooked by regular users of the page, as they usually skip old topics and scroll to the bottom.

Online chart sources can be found by checking the references at any popular British artist's discography page. Look at The Beatles discography or Pink Floyd discography and you should find what you want. USA charts are harder to find online, because Billboard does not make their old charts available for free, and presumably takes action against other sites which post their charts. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, what about less popular artists? For example, if I know an album by non-mainstream band charted at a low position, how would I find which position it charted at? Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Once you get to the external website, you should be able to look up anything. If you can't find it, it didn't chart. If by "non-mainstream band / low position" you mean an off-the-chart posistion on a genre-specific chart, I would question whether that info is worth inserting in Wikipedia. To get such info, if you really want to research beyond what is easily accessible online, you could email the company that produces the chart. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An article needing your attention

Rick's Continentals, found doing WP:NPP. Needs a little love, and I'm not familiar with how music articles tend to be formatted. References are also lacking, and I'm not 100% the band is notable, but you guys would know better. → ROUX ₪ 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

~~ok i am on my way..will fix ref and do some wikifing and layout fix up!!..notability i will let others worry about~~

Update ok i dont think there even close to noteble..i will ask a few more before tagging.. Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

a Pop-music question in need of input

there's a discussion going on at the Pop music talk page about whether or not there's consensus to start naming particular artists in the article. more input would be very helpful – thanks! Sssoul (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Marios Tofi

I'm curious if Marios Tofi satisfies WP:MUSIC. I don't think he has released an album, but he has placed in several competitions. I guess the question then becomes if those competitions are "major" and thus satisfy #9 in WP:MUSIC. I am completely unfamiliar with the competitions named in the article. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My default answer would be yes, he is notable enough, but that wouldn't count as an official vote. While he is probably popular in some territories of the world, I am concerned about the competitions he has been in and the notability of them, concerning how they don't have wikipedia articles. Hopefully there can be several more opinions posted about this article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Additional input from others would be greatly appreciated. PDCook (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was recently thinking about this, and thought about how this man doesn't have a listed discography on here. That might go against the existence of his article, but I'm not saying he will. It's just a thought. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't look like he's released any albums, which sent up a big red flag for me. I just don't know if the competitions he's participated in make him notable. PDCook (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Started a bunch of AFD's

Discovered the category for music genre stubs and have started picking through it. I have nominated a bunch of articles. They all pretty much fall into The category of neologisms, stuff that so new there are no real sources. Stuff that's an OR blend of other stuff. Stuff that might almost kind of be a real genre but the differences is so small that it really should be part of a parent article.

You will notice most of them are dance music. I assure everyone this not because of any prejudice, it is simply because there is a huge number of poorly defined sub genres of dance music. Hopefully we can get this cleaned up, things deleted, things merrged things expanded and sourced if they can be. I welcome all input. Ridernyc (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like I would want to donate to some, if not all, of those discussions. Thank you for bringing them up. By the way, I don't want to be rude, but I noticed that each time I saw this post, the ambient trance link appeared twice. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre Stubs AFD's round 2

All comments welcome. Ridernyc (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)