Talk:Artists and repertoire

Early comment (title added)
Perhaps this article should be moved to the Wictionary.


 * Nah. It just needs to be expanded. --b. Touch 03:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How much can it realistically be expanded? IMHO, this is an industry term that either belongs in Wictionary, or merged into an article about the record industry. -- Frenchgeek 04:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be expanded to discuss just what goes on in an A&R department, and name some notqable A&Rs. --b. Touch 06:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it could do with a list of A&R heads at major labels across the world, that would make it more encyclopaedic... - Duncan 16:12, 4th Mar 2006

plural?
"Artist" or "artists"? -- Shadowhillway 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good question. The article title doesn't even match the use in the lead section. David spector (talk)

True, it does need a litle more expansion, i came here as a last ditch attempt to finish an essay, but i did not get enough info to accomodate

Title an abbreviation?
I know that the abbreviation is commonly used in the industry, but should the article be under the actual name, Artist and repertoire? Or "Artist and repertoire representative" or "Artist and repertoire department"? With the abbrevs being the redirects? &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Becaue the term is actually A&R. Artist and repertoire makes it sound like that is what they do, when in reality they produce, they define the direction of a record label, they are responsible for the direction a particular artist takes, and therefore they define the direction music is heading. Mattisse(talk) 03:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a spamlink ?
I have twice removed the external link for "Crazed Hits" which was added by user 84.175.244.16 (Talk) I think the link adds nothing to the article and is purely a spamlink? So I don't break the 3 revert rule can somebody else either remove the link, or tell me I am wrong? Thanks --Richhoncho (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Crazed Hits has been featured as a lead story on HitsDailyDouble, which is probably the most renowned music industry website and publication in the world. The site is read by a ton of music industry people, with the majority being A&Rs, so I think it definitely belongs in the article and adds value to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashbaxx (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008.


 * By the same virtue an article about a chef should include a link the The Caterer? I don't think so. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If he/it is doing A&R work, and was featured in the most renowned A&R publication, then YES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashbaxx (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The link to Kings of A&R (which had been on this page previously), was removed when CrazedHits.com attempted to promote their aspiring blog through this entry. I don't really care what happens to the crazed hits link, but could the Kings of A&R link please be returned to this entry? There was no explanation for its removal. Thank you. Fingerguns (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. But it was the other way around. Someone affiliated with Kings of A&R kept removing the Crazed Hits link. Both sites belong here, no need for the Kings of A&R people to remove the competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashbaxx (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Competition?Fingerguns (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with any site, and I removed all of the links. Stop spamming the site, please.  Horologium  (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how those are spam links. Both sites, Crazed Hits and Kings of A&R, are leading A&R websites, read by music industry professionals from all over the world. These sites are not commercial, they are free to access and offer inside information into the world of A&R. Therefore, they offer additional information to the term "A&R" and should be listed either as external links or references. -- Flashbaxx — Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They are both blogs, not "leading A&R websites". A quick check of Technorati ratings indicates that Crazed Hits has a technorati rank of 512,788 (12 inbound links), and "Kings of A&R" is a relative giant at 228,152 (28 inbound links). Sorry, they don't make the grade.  Horologium  (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. Since when does a technorati rank determine whether or not a website is the leading site of its kind? Plus, A&R is a niche market, so those sites obviously can't be as big as (i.e.) Perez Hilton. Both sites are the biggest of its kind, hence they belong here. If you can find a pure A&R website or "blog" that is bigger, and read by more music industry professionals, then I'm the first one to let this go.

Traffic ranks on compete.com : http://siteanalytics.compete.com/crazedhits.com+kingsofar.com -- Flashbaxx —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

Reference added
I added an actual reference for the article. This is a WP:General reference: it WP:Verifies most of the material in the article.

The other links (that we've been fighting over) are really external links, providing new and interesting information that goes beyond the material in this article. I don't know if they actually verify anything in the article, so I don't believe they are "references" in the way Wikipedia uses the term.

I don't believe these are "spam" links, and so should remain as external links.CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Charles. I work in the music industry, and those two sites are read by almost all of my colleagues. It's insane that some people on here consider them "spam" links. (Flashbaxx (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Not unexpectedly Flashbaxx agrees. There are 2 links for Crazed Hits, one is for interviews with A&R people which I think is valid, the second one, which I object to is a direct link to a site that acts as a middleman to A&R, is purely there to sell the site and adds nothing whatsoever to the article and fails WP:SPAM on several counts. I also note that Flashbaxx is quick to remove any of his competitors that might like to add their spam links (I agree with Flashbaxx on this!). I also like the work Charles has added to the article, long over due for such an important part of the music industry, also the radio promotion article is a nice addition. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you could drop the second link. At the very least, it's not a very useful link. CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Charles, I note that Flashbaxx has, in the past, been removing the Kings of A&R Link in spite of protests to the contrary above, -and- each A&R representative listed also has a Crazed Hits link on their pages, and on some pages there are unverified claims made by Flashbaxx for Crazed Hits. What we have here is systemic spamming and and a failure of WP:COI. As a result of your comment I shall once again remove one of the Crazed Hits links. If I am reverted again by Flashbaxx I shall take the matter to arbitration. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not true, not once did I remove the Kings of A&R link. In fact, in the discussion above, I said that both links should remain on the site. Flashbaxx (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For your information here are 4 samples of when you have removed the Kings of A&R in favour of your site. [], ,,. There are more but I think I have proven my point, Furthermore you have removed other links with an edit summary which was basically "remove spamlink" for instance, ,[],[]. I have not bothered to look again at the changes you also made as an anonymous IP. Talking of anonymous IPs, I see you are not slow to put an ineffective block on anybody that disagrees with you. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To add: There are a few A&R people who do have Crazed Hits links on their pages, but these links are all valid and add value to the articles, since they link to video interviews with those people. Providing and linking to a resource where someone may gather important insights into someone's career and thinking is hardly "systematic spamming". Flashbaxx (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for better edit comments
I'm not sure I understand the motivation for this edit. I have several problems with it (1) Completeness: It deleted accurate information, for example, the old version described precisely how A&R executives oversee the recording process, the fact that they pick the single, and so on. (2) Emphasis: In a short article, why do we need the sentence about A&R in the UK fifty years ago? (3) The Krasilovsky reference is used to support a point that does not appear in their book. (4) I am leery of using websites like Taxi, Hit Quarters or Crazed Hits as references. These are companies who have a particular pitch to make. Can't we just cite mainstream books? (5) (And this is just English 101) The paragraphs don't have clear and distinguishable topics, and there are even sentences that are not on a topic (consider the second sentence). I'm sorry to be so blunt in my criticism. Just trying to make Wikipedia better. I need to know a little more about what the goal is here. CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Charles, good questions, but not answerable. I thought that A&R did work round the world as referred to only the "UK" i.e. find an act, find a song (originally), record and release, but I may be wrong, and I can't verify (the keyword), although in the case of John Hammond I understand it to be true, so I'd keep it as is without the UK reference. I agree with you regarding entries from pitch sites. Over all I think you have been doing a magnificent job with this article and agree with your sentiments. The real problem, as ever, is people who can't distinquish between facts, opinions and urban myth - happens all round WP. Actually, I think a little historical perspective of how the job has developed would be encyclopaedic. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one shows up to defend this new version, I am planning on reverting it. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

✅ Reverted, with additional sections, footnotes and references. CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed spam policy for this article
I would like to suggest a simple (but harsh) standard for external links in this article. If the website offers a service for which it charges unsigned musicians, then it is spam. In other words, if they are asking for a fee (rather than a percentage, or a kickback from the record company), then the link is advertising.

We can find all the sources we need for this article in published books. There is no reason to use additional sources that are connected to these kind of websites. CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a harsh policy, totally in line with WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Where it might become a lttle less certain is where the there is a wikilink to such organizations, do you allow a link to the relevant article. Again I am happy to following your reasoning. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)