This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz 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.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry 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 Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk 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.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
Why is this necessary? This new grammar would make the meaning less clear. isento (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about that, "as well as" places more emphasis on one of the elements, you can see that when Ginsberg is talking about Dylan, the Beatles, the sound and so on, while is only in part by his witness of the protest. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've revised it for added emphasis. isento (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and inspired to set Blake's poetry to music. → and was inspired to set Blake's poetry to music.
That's not better grammatically, because the verb "was" already introduces both clauses earlier in the sentence. isento (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"all the lovely youthful bands that have been wakening the conscience of the world, really, were approaching high poetry and cosmic consciousness in their content, so I was interested in seeing if Blake's highest poetry could be vocalised, tuned, and sung in the context of the Beatles' 'I Am the Walrus' or 'Day in the Life of' [sic] or in the context of 'Sad-eyed Lady of the Lowland' [sic] or 'John Wesley Harding' by Dylan. Also Dylan said that he didn't like Blake, so I thought this would be an interesting way of laying Blake on him" → use your own words more often
I wouldn't use my own words here - it's a unique, and difficult-to-parse, quote from him, who isn't quoted all that much in the article. isento (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree this quote is away to long. It's not that hard look, "Ginsberg believed this would be a compelling approach to present Blake to Dylan", or something on this vein. You can keep a setence or two, but not all of this. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I paraphrased the last sentence. isento (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There, he experimented with setting → There, he experimented setting
Orlovsky also contributed vocals to the recording → Orlovsky also contributed with his vocals to the recording
First suggestion done. Second not - the current version is more grammatically correct, and more common in professional writing. isento (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ink 19. But I didn't feel it's notable enough (no article) to worth mentioning and distracting readers. isento (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could say the same regarding Lester Bangs and Rolling Stone. If you use for Relix. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is an adequate comparison. But I will preface the mention with "the magazine Ink 19", because there is no article to link for readers. isento (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today there is not, but someday it might be. Thanks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Retrospective professional reviews scores should be on the section above
Move the reissue to the above section (it's should be under the release section)
The same applies to the AllMusic review and the 2019 Gavin Edwards
This section has to be renamed, this is not a legacy
No. All of this is the "legacy" of the album's release - by definition, "something that is a result of events in the past", the event being the album's release and reception (how it was received, not reassessed later). Reappraisals, re-release, the artist's direction consequent of the album (later represented on the Complete edition)... those are results of the album's past, thus the section name. Even Jurek's review explains its place in the artist's legacy, while the Edwards piece defines its place in time as among the "weird albums the magazine praised in the 1970s". "Release" is the original distribution of the album to the public, which is why that content is consolidated there. isento (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between the personnel and the credits.
I respectfully disagree with your first suggestion - that would be redundant, and the album article style guide suggests "Personnel" for good reason. I've replaced the dashes with the spaced dash template. isento (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
