Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 31

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 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Does anyone have the resources to start a selected discography? Cab Calloway#Discography. Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

I think Category:Singles by The Beatles would be logical and useful. We dont have any categories for singles by artist. Back in 2006, Category:Singles by artist was deleted and contents merged, but i dont know the details. Maybe someone here at the music project can research the rationale for its prior deletion (too many new categories?) We have loads of bands with notable singles, with The Beatles being possibly the most notable. If recreated, it would have as a parent category Category:Works by artist, which also has Category:Albums by artist, Category:Album covers by author (nested one down), Category:Music videos by director, etc. I suppose, paralleling David Cross's Category:Works by David Cross, we could have Category:Works by The Beatles, with the singles cat nesting in it. Any thoughts on the created of the Beatles cat, and the recreation of the singles by artist cat? I posted this same question, slightly altered, at the Beatles Wikiproject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. However, this should not be expanded to much. It should be confined to The Beatles and other super-icons. Turning this into a large project would be a huge waste of time. Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to be involved in this but it seems that it is not currently active. Any suggestions? Thepoodlechef (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. Every single Wikiproject I've seen that's dedicated to a single musical artist has petered out & become inactive not long after launching. Efforts to improve articles of an artist-specific family are better done through a

WP:MUSICIANS. Separate Wikiprojects involve a lot of administrative overhead, whereas with a task force you can rely on the administration of the parent project and get a small group of editors focused on the actual important work: article improvement. --IllaZilla (talk

) 05:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer review wanted

I am looking for someone to do a peer review for Rodney Atkins. Anyone want to help? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking for some input on a dispute about the existence of a "Acoustic" genre and its use on the musical artist Infobox. Discussion is Talk:Julia_Nunes#Acoustic_Again here. Anyone care to have a look? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Would appreciate some more input in this discussion. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that the order of charts for a song/album is different depending on where the artist is from. For example, on the list for Nickelback, Canada is first because they're a Canadian band. This makes sense, but I think it would be more logical to keep it the same on any page, just because that way you can know the order no matter what. DanielDPeterson + talk 19:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This comment is to start a discussion about AMGs prominence as a reference for musical genres. I have used AMG for much research although it seems to be hardly the last word. Since AMG figures so highly into what music critics are using as reference material i think it is important to note their influence in the AMG article. Since they are free to publish what they want and it might not be sufficiently referenced or cross checked, they have the tendency (in my opinion) to publish slightly sub-standard genre descriptions and are usually 2-3 years behind on their band biographies. These problems may be only apparent on their allmusic.com website, while the actually database may contain more in-depth information. Since I dont have access to the database I couldn't say. However since the allmusic.com site is one of the main sources for referencing music info, I thought it should be noted. Xsxex 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on their substandard genre listings. I've found that they list any band that became popular in the mid or late 90's as post-grunge, including such ridicolous claims as blink-182. On multiple talk pages we have came to the conclusions not to use AMG as a source as it is unreliable. In fact I just spent the past minutes cleaning up some articles to get rid of the AMG sources. I highly reccomend people stop using it as a source.Hoponpop69 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They're notoriously unreliable. Dont EVER use AMG!--SilverOrion (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AMG worships at the temple of Nirvana and gives low ratings to anything it considers artsy-fartsy or ambitious. IT should be avoided like the plague and I think omitted from infoboxes on album articles. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this site has little if any veracity as a reliable source and should not be used as one, as it has demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge about genre definitions over a long period of time. Wiki is crippling itself by using it as one of its main sources. 216.107.197.3 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.197.115 (talk)

Throughout Wikipedia we should stop accepting Allmusic as a source for genre info.

Allmusic's taxonomy of genres is one of many on the web, and to their credit, it is certainly one of the most comprehensive, at least for popular music. But it often makes dubious connections between disparate genres, dumps artists in too-broad genres, or flat-out invents new genre names (like "post disco") just to fill in gaps and to have a place to file every artist & song under, without regard for how anyone else in the world categorizes the music. It's entirely their system for categorizing artists & songs. They also paid people (at one time, credited on each page, now anonymous) to write a little description of each of the genres in a way that acknowledges the links they set up. Sometimes the info is correct or at least plausible, but other times, it's reaching quite a bit.

Inevitably, articles were created on Wikipedia to mirror Allmusic's taxonomy, and used Allmusic as their primary source of info. Some of these have since been beefed up with additional, much more academic and reliable sources which confirm some of Allmusic's claims. Others are still floundering, relying on and repeating Allmusic's claims as fact. I've seen attempts to delete the articles about Allmusic-invented genres, or prune Allmusic's influence from other articles, meet with resistance from those who seem convinced of Allmusic's authority and who feel Allmusic meets the letter of the law, as it were, for third-party publications that can be cited.

I'd like to see if we could get consensus for at least defaulting to saying "no" to using Allmusic as a source for genre info on Wikipedia. What do you all think? —mjb (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

!!!! *sob* ItsAlwaysLupus (talk

) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They list Rammstein as progressive metal, I don't think they are a prog band. they don't sound like a prog metal band. I think they got info wrong, are they reliable? Chigurgh (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AllMusic reviews and biographies are reliable, but their tags are not so reliable. Hopefully that helps.--3family6 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with this, but is this official wikipedia policy?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that policy specifies. The above has been my general understanding of the consensus. Usually Allmusic seems pretty accurate with its tags, but occasionally there is something totally odd, or a confusion with other artists. I'm not sure how tags fit into Wikipedia policy.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ, there have been so many bad cases of genres on Allmusic. For instance Falling in Reverse is called Screamo, anyone could tell thats wrong. Also Escape the Fate has been Nu-Metal and Heavy metal, That is so incorrect its infuriating. Also The Agony Scene has been called Heavy Metal...they're deathcore and metalcore. Another example A Smile from the Trenches has been called Pop Punk, Emo-pop, and Pop, thats so wrong, plus the website calls them Smile from the Trenches, and A Smile from the Trenches are, Screamo, emocore, posthardcore, alternative rock and metalcore. The list of bands goes on. Also, Steriogram has been called Nu Metal and heavy Metal and Alien Ant Farm have been called Post-Grunge and Nu Metal Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently in the process of trying to create a page for an artist but I need some help to clarify with reference use. I was referred to this area of wikipedia to ask. I am aware of using recommend sourcing like Allmusic, however since some of the artists (including label compliations) may not be on there or in some cases music not belonging to the appropriate artist as I have noticed with the particular artist page I'm working on, is it acceptable to use Discogs as a reference? Any advice would be grateful not just for the page I'm creating but to help me edit some other pages that fall in line with this genre of music. This is link to the page I am trying to create for them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Modulate. Any further help and advice to help get this article approved would be appreciated as well! Thanks guys! :)

Sydirasky (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right! All Music is not the only valid reliable source (see

WP:RS)! Discogs is valid too and so are many other. The main criteria for WP:RS is that there is editorial oversight. In an early version of Wikipedia:Notability (music), Discogs and All Music were called out as valid online proof of notability (diff from 2006). Royalbroil

05:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Discogs is not a valid source, actually. It's based on user edits. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this!! It's become increasingly frustrating for me creating this article because of other users contridicting each other when I have asked for help. The user that pointed me here also agreed with me that Discogs was not only more reliable but also more detailed. Discogs also contains the compilations that I have listed that other sites (including Allmusic) may not have. Just looked now and it got approved (finally!). Thank you so much!!! ^_^

Sydirasky (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Human rights and Eurovision

A discussion is ongoing about whether news coverage of human rights issues related to Eurovision should be added to the article. Opinions welcome at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone trim this sample, as it is too long? I don't have the tools anymore. Just before the singing begins at 0:05 would be good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The article David Sanjek needs more categories, and the talk:David Sanjek needs more music project templates. Please help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Songwriters.

Unless I am mistaken, I asked and was told (this was a number of years ago, under an IP account) how songwriters were credited. I was told that they are done by birth name, and not stage name. Does this still stand? I am just curious, because all of Lady Gaga's songs, for example, are credited to "Lady Gaga" as a writer, and I was under the impression that she should be credited as "Germanotta". Is that right or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, consult the liner notes and use what they say. I've worked on dozens of articles about albums by artists who use pseudonyms, but who still use their legal/birth name for songwriting credits. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't own any of the albums in question. I am just see discrepancies in the articles and trying to make it more uniform. DanielDPeterson + talk 06:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated

. Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music articles.

NoeticaTea? 23:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed a

) 11:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have made a proposal to merge

) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Another merger discussion in the country field: Here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So, currently there are 2 American bands that go by the name "Device". There's

. I was wondering how to disambiguate two bands of the same name. Was this way correct? Also I somewhat question the notion that one is a "supergroup", but I wasn't sure what I should change it to either.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that these bands have the same name and nationality, I would possibly recommend specifying the bands according to genre; by that, I mean that they could possibly be called Device (pop rock band) and Device (metal band). With that said, I would want to look for another type of disambiguating first before resorting to genre. Maybe such as the bands' locations in terms of what city they are based in. But if genres are the only way to separate these two bands, then so be it. Besides, the pop rock band does not have a specified city on their article.

To bring up examples of similar dilemmas, there are two American bands with Wikipedia articles who are named Death. They are sorted out as

Solstice (UK progressive rock band)

. Therefore, considering these three examples, I guess genre is the second resort if two bands from the same name are from the same nation.

Speak to me_{concerning my deeds.}

19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, off the top of my head I could think of any bands sharing the last name, only bands that changed their names to avoid that scenario. Yeah, I wanted to avoid using genre, with the way people subjectively bicker about genre so much on Wikipedia, but I couldn't think of much else beyond location, which they both share. At least these two band's genre are likely to be somewhat uncontroversial, one being clearly pop, and one likely to be metal. At least there's some precedent. I'll probably go with that. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend disambiguating either by genre:

• Device (heavy metal band)

or by date of formation:

• Device (band formed 1986) and Device (band formed 2012)

The latter worked in a case I had where 2 British rock acts named "Sharks" had to be disambiguated from each other: Sharks (band formed 1972) and Sharks (band formed 2007). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I like both. I wonder if one (genre or year) would be more efficient with Google/Search engine hits or not... Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like some more discussion on my move request for

) 19:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose renaming "fun (band)" to "fun."

I propose renaming fun (band) to Fun. Per WP:COMMONNAME and for unnecessary disambiguation. It makes no sense for the proper, simpler, and most known name for the band to redirect to one no one is going to look for.Lucia Black (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've recently found edits by 86.46.103.178 (talk · contribs) where dates were changed. Most of this hasn't been caught. I don't have time to go through all of their edits and I'm not knowledgeable in the area. Can someone look over them, and keep an eye on other issues with The Monkees and their discography? Ryan Vesey 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This may be the same user as 86.46.100.193 (talk · contribs). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone would look at this merge discussion regarding an artist's discography. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Nickel Creek for a Good Article reassessment and would appreciate some discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The is an open invitation to members of Project Music to participate in a new RfC at Project Eurovision. As ProjectMusic is somewhat of a "mother project" to WP:ESC then I think it would be beneficial to ascertain a broader prospective in regards to the project operations as a whole. To partake in the discussion, please

17:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please help make an important decision at Talk:CBS Records.