Talk:Music journalism

Gender and race theory
This section is about women writing about music. Gender would require information that compare and contrast both male and female journalism. Further race is solely mentioned in regard to women of color with a focus again on women. There is a note that the section is weighted and needs additions. It's well written and cited. It's only weighted by the title of the section. The title should be changed to Women in Music Journalism or something similar so it can be expanded upon and into different genres. Racial theory should absolutely be a section but separate and apart. Is anyone is opposed to the title change and a new subsection? When I do find information on the racial elements from more than one reliable source, I will check here first for welcomed suggestions, questions, comments, and/or feedback. --Asr1014 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

merging
Strongly against merging the articles. The journalism of music comprises far more than criticism. If anything, critic should be merged into this article. -- Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.238.216 (talk)

I also am against this movement -- Toby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.79.58 (talk)

I don't like when the job and the person who do the job are merged into one article, so I oppose. — Reinyday, 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am against merging these articles- hannah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.215.199 (talk)

Don't bother - Adam

Totally against - Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.235.230 (talk)

Merge Music critic into here?
Looks like I might be re-opening an old argument, but...I left a comment over at Talk:Music critic suggesting that that article be redirected & merged into this one, at least temporarily...on the basis that "Critic" is currently a stub and the only page in it's category; while this page is more developed, but still needs expanding. I can see that ideally both subjects would be treated separately, while linked to one another & sharing material--perhaps even sub-articles, in common. I think the Q is how to start down the road that gets either or both of these pages in the neighborhood of Musicology, (which should be mutually linked w/ both of course). Is there a WikiProject these can be referred to? -- Turangalila (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lester Bangs?
Is there seriously no mention of Lester Bangs in this entry? I mean, he might have been a bit of a stoned-out hack, but let's be serious, people! I had to add Creem to this list! Who created this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpmumau (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular music journalism cleaned up
I tried to make the short section less of an attack on popular music journalism, and removed comments which apply to freelance journalism and writing reviews in general (poor pay, free tickets, free product, etc). As for Lester Bangs, a list of popular music journalists is a good idea. I'll start one.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Proposed merge
This article and the article music critic contain virtually identical material. There is a separate article on music criticism which deals with the aesthetics, but it seems to make sense to put music journalism and music critic together.--Smerus (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One month without any comments, so I have carried out merge.--Smerus (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotation marks within the main text
There seems to be alot of quotation marks in this article and no mention of what is actualy being quoted. Quotation marks are best used when describing opinion (in which case the article should explain who's opinion this is). If they are simply factual quotes from whatever articles are being referenced they are most likely not needed. In this article I find the heavy use of quotation marks confusing and therefore detrimental to the quality of the article. If others agree I will take these quotation marks out where I feel they are not necesary. --P-we Joplin (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove classical section (withdrawn)
As others have noted, the article music criticism is duplicative of a large portion of this article. I think that most (perhaps nearly all) readers who come to this article are expecting to read about rock/pop music journalism. I propose that the headnote should direct readers to music criticism for the historical origins of the field, and that material should be removed from this article. That section doesn't belong here because it's covered well enough under music criticism. (This article probably should, however, retain material about classical music journalism in the contemporary press during the rock era.) Are there objections? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Further note: the headnote should direct readers to Musicology for the academic discipline, to Musicology for academic study of rock and pop music, and to music criticism for journalism about classical music (since that article is exclusively concerned with classical music). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn for now. I think the focus of the article was improved by just moving some paragraphs into the Origins section, without deleting any of the material. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Women in music
We're in agreement here. But please read this article before you add cut-and-paste paragraphs, because the material you've added is already here, in this article. It's already here. The same information, the same quotations. It's just in a different place and in slightly different wording. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't an edit war, not at all... I'm just trying to point out that the work has already been done, that the material you want to add was already added and is already integrated into the article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for trying to add content that was already in the article, as you correctly pointed out. I will read the article first next time! OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Section tags added in August 2016
The section Music journalism was tagged in August 2016 for over-quotation and undue weight. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section, like the rest of the article, is heavy on quotes. Quoting the source is often the clearest and fairest way to present a critic's opinion in an objective and encyclopedic way, where the topic involves aesthetic judgments of art. Many good articles in this area – for example, the recent substantial additions to Rockism – include numerous quotes from notable sources, for that reason.
 * I'm not seeing where there's undue weight that would raise a WP:NPOV problem. If others perceive it, perhaps they could help by identifying it along with balancing content that's been under-weighted or that needs to be added.

Removal of personal opinion writing
Your detailed addition to this article is inappropriate because it consists of opinion and analysis that is almost entirely unattributed and unsourced (except for one quote at the end). In style, it seems very much like an essay written for school, rather than encyclopedic content. No original research is allowed in Wikipedia articles.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion or analysis, or for original research. If you repeatedly add back this reverted content without addressing the issues that have been identified by me and other editors, you may be perceived as engaging in edit warring.

However, if you have reliable, verifiable published sources for each one of the unsourced facts and/or opinions expressed in the content that you recently added to Music journalism, then please cite them. A footnote should be provided for every single statement of fact. A footnote and attribution should be given for every single statement of opinion or analysis, which must not be your own original synthesis.

Please respond to this discussion by adding your comments below. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Removals made in this edit
If we could talk about these removals, I'm not convinced there's adequate consensus to support the removal of all of this (I think fairly good) content. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) 23:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd say that Colianni2015's edit comment in that edit, with its snarky "These excised paragraphs were filled with unverifiable opinion, inadequately sourced, consistent with other recent excisions," is a strong indication of bad faith. That remark shows that Colianni2015 understood the reason for the "recent excisions" of opinion writing – but rather than sourcing the unsourced contributions, Colianni2015 lashed out by deleting fully-sourced content. No matter how new Colianni2015 might be to Wikipedia, it was impossible to miss the fact that nearly every sentence in the paragraphs "excised" by Colianni2015 had a citation to a reference. That's far from being "consistent with other recent excisions." Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Scott Miller quote
There's a quote from Scott Miller in the article: "Part of the problem is that a lot of vital pop music is made by 22-year-olds who enjoy shock value, and it's pathetic when their elders are cornered into unalloyed reverence." What problem does he mean? Is he referring to the lack of negative reviews or something else? I do not have access to the book so cannot find this out for myself. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

New Section Proposal
I'm considering adding a section on early christian/evangelical criticisms of rock music. What do you guys think of this? Musicluvrr (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

New Section Added
Hello all! I have added a new section on early christian and conservative criticisms of rock music. Please give feedback and/or questions! Musicluvrr (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities
— Assignment last updated by Danielle2732 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)