Talk:Modern Vampires of the City

Resource
A draft was created at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Modern Vampires of the City that has much more content. Danger High voltage! 05:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Add christgau review
Robert christgau gave the album an A+ - the first non compilation A+ he's given since 2007. Someone add it!! http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/blog--vampire-weekend-deerhunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.249.18 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone posted a review by Aesthetic Magazine Toronto...is this a reputable source? it doesn't seem like a major publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.44.63 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: is AbsolutePunk considered a reputable publication? Their review is quite well written and contains several sentences and phrases that would be helpful to include in the reception area. I wonder if someone might include its 95% grade in the ratings.


 * As always, notability of the critic/publication should be considered, which is gauged by its reputation and coverage among reliable third-party sources (ex. PopMatters' "about" page summarizing its notability). AbsolutePunk appears to be a relatively insignificant publication (at least in comparison with those used in this article or at Metacritic), and they cater to music that is outside the mainstream. The reception section is dense enough, and unless the writer of this particular review is a "notable individual", I think their reviews would be more appropriate to include in a lesser known album (article). Dan56 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Genres
Stop changing the genres...the current "Indie Rock, alternative rock, indie pop, baroque pop" describes the album full well and more importantly is fully consistent with the band's other album descriptions on Wikipedia, which wouldn't be in place without backup by reputable sources. All 4 of those genres are listed under the band's main page and both their first two albums. To remove that continuation b simply listing one hugely vague description is to do a disservice to readers.

To be clear, there are indeed sources to describe the band as all of those genres. Citing them all on the actual page just looks cluttered. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elie-lichtschein/god-death-and-modern-vampires_b_3367759.html http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/171217-vampire-weekend-modern-vampires-of-the-city/ http://social.entertainment.msn.com/music/blogs/blog--vampire-weekend-deerhunter http://www.allmusic.com/album/modern-vampires-of-the-city-mw0002489977

all four genres are referenced in description of the album in these articles (chamber pop often used in place of baroque pop, but as the two are nearly indistinguishable, lets simply keep it consistent with their other entries on Wikipedia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.44.63 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your content removal from the background section. Unfortunately, you still need to cite sources that specifically deal this album, not the band. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles are supposed to explain sides, not just take them. You're "consistent" argument smacks of genre warring symptoms and will not be accepted. Whose opinion is it that "the current indie rock..." describes the album "full well"? CITE A SOURCE please. And you don't have to use the infobox, which is merely intended as a reflection of what is theoretically supposed to be cited in the article's prose (WP:IBX). Use the "Music and lyrics" section, where "indie rock" is sufficiently sourced and explained in one of the critics' interpretations dealing with this album (WP:SUBJECTIVE). There's no one source that calls the album "indie rock, alternative rock, indie pop, baroque pop". If these are different sources, then conflicting sources should be given content and explained in the relevant section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this source, which describes the album as all four of the genre's the person listed above. Also, the guy above seems a bit steamed. Relax everyone. No need for caps and italics and all. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/vampire_weekend/modern_vampires_of_the_city/index.html

Kbrito162 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a professional review site (WP:ALBUM/REVSIT), just a group blog (WP:BLOGS) whose entry for this album probably mirrors a past revision of Wikipedia's article. Again, the point is to have things explained, not just listed, especially for subjective interpretations. If offers readers little to have those four listed if they are not explained within the context of the article. And the caps are shortcut links to the guideline pages; the italics for explain are exactly how WP:NPOV shows. And if it is you, please sign in to your account before editing; 74.105.44.63 and your edit history appear to have edits to similar articles. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception: Christgau
[Thoughtless complaint about review removed by author] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "To wit" is an idiom for "Namely"; there's no reference to the "musical wit" (whatever that means). Although he hasn't believed Sgt. Pepper's to have fulfilled a "concept album" fruitfully in a past article he doesn't even comment on its "concept" in this review being discussed. His list of elements ("verse/chorus/bridge/​intro melody...") is continuing and explaining the idea he began when he called Sgt. Pepper's a "truer precedent". Furthermore, his line about the music and lyrics working so that no "concept" is suggested is just a comment on how smoothly it flows, without coming off as "overworked". Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the reception section should not be one huge block paragraph, it makes it quite difficult to read. Space it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by


 * It's not--there are two. Since the album is reported as having received "universal acclaim", the rave reviews are in the first. Seven or eight sentences each is hardly "one huge...", and the first two sentences will not be spaced out for an awkwardly short paragraph. If it truly is difficult to read, then it should probably be trimmed of frivolous quotes that may repeat other quotes; no matter how you space it, the same prose is still there for readers. Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

You're right on this, it seems it was I who misinterpreted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

music and lyrics
for the lyrics section, this article delves deeply into the religious allusions and themes present in the album. might be a good idea to pull a few quotes and ideas from it. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/172143-god-and-man-on-modern-vampires-of-the-city/74.105.44.63 (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ya Hey single?
I'm drafting an article on "Ya Hey" as a user subpage, but I want to know whether to refer to it as a single. According to this article and the discography it's a single but I can't find anything on the Internet that would suggest it's a single. There's a video released on the same date as the release date given by this article, but that doesn't make it a single. Jon1901 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya Hey article is now moved to main namespace. Jon1901 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)