Talk:Of Human Feelings

Last sentence in Critical reception
Does the last line in #Critical reception place too much emphasis on Christgau's "A+" or misrepresent what the Press-Telegram said about "the ultimate accolade", as expressed concern about here? IMO, "ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear by the source in the sentence right before the reference to "the ultimate accolade": "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus. The 18 records given the ultimate accolade - an A-plus - include the Clash's album London Calling, the Ornette Coleman album Of Human Feelings..." There's no reason for the source to reiterate the fact that an "A+" is Christgau's highest grade, and since it's better for the flow of the first paragraph's summary of Christgau's review to omit the rating, the last "accolade"-related paragraph seems the best place to mention it and the Press-Telegram's characterization of it, which as the source mentions is in the context of "rock criticism". Thoughts? Dan56 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also want to point out that it wouldn't make sense for the Press-Telegram to point out that an "A+" is the final/highest grade/accolade in a letter grade system known to most of their (presumably American) readers, along with them having already outlined the range of Christgau's letter grades in the preceding sentence. Dan56 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Xgau is probably the most important pop/rock critic of all time; his influence was probably even more profound at that time when there was less music journalism (now we have an abundance of online and print sources). The importance of him awarding an "A+" should be mentioned when so many good albums tend to fall into "A" or "A-". His ranking system has even been analysed in books like Music and Politics by John Street, who discusses the nature of the "A+" and compares this with methods used by Q. —JennKR | ☎ 11:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't debating Christgau's notability, I was suggesting that the article strays wildly off-topic and off-source in an attempt to assert his importance. I would also like to point out that JennKR was canvassed to this discussion by Dan56. Flow Ridian (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't presume to know my intent or what this was "an attempt" at; I found the source by researching the album through Google News Archive. "Wildly off-topic" is exaggerating this, and you have yet to respond to any of the points I made above. Dan56 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My position isn't complicated, Dan56. The source is referring to Christgau's "ultimate accolade", not the ultimate accolade in all of music, as though Christgau is the final word and his approval is more highly desired than any other. You are reading this wrong and misrepresenting what the source states. Your attempt to analyze the intent of the anonymous author is a massive logic fail. Why not allow others - who you do not canvass - to weigh-in, since we are obviously not gong to agree on this point. Flow Ridian (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I solicited comments from editors listed on my watchlist of articles who either "have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" or are "known for expertise in the field", i.e. WP:MUSIC, WP:ALBUMS, etc. (WP:CAN) Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So you asked JennKR to comment here within two hours of them lavishing you with praise on your talk page, but you assumed them to be a neutral party in a dispute between you and me? Really? Flow Ridian (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that you've spammed almost 100 people to review this article. Flow Ridian (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to calm down, sir. Your complaint about "spamming" was addressed and found to be perfectly acceptable by two editors commenting at the very discussion you linked, so why are you digging for something personal or conduct-related to undermine and distract from the substance of this discussion? And as is the case with even the most experienced editors, and I have disagreed in the past, most recently at Parallel Lines and I Am... Sasha Fierce, but I trust they're experienced, especially in this field. I'll make this simpler for you and us to move on with the rest of the FAC review regardless of the outcome here. Dan56 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Poll/consensus for keeping "which the Press-Telegram called 'the ultimate accolade'"
The original text:

"CHRISTGAU'S GUIDE: Anyone with more than a passing interest in rock criticism should investigate ``Christgau's Record Guide: The 80's (Pantheon), Robert Christgau's collection of some 3,000 reviews of rock albums released in the last 10 years. Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus. Most of the reviews and their accompanying grades, some of which have been revised, originally appeared in The Village Voice in Christgau's monthly ``Consumer Guide column. Quirky and opinionated, they exemplify passionate, informed polemical criticism. Although Christgau takes the formal values of popular music into consideration, they tend to count less than the political and social ramifications of popular music. The grades dished out by the critic, a self-proclaimed leftie, are as much moral judgments as they are esthetic evaluations. Christgau is among the few music critics who can rightfully say he has listened to almost every pop record released, and his tastes are comprehensive. The 18 records given the ultimate accolade - an A-plus - include the Clash's album ``London Calling (Epic), the Ornette Coleman album ``Of Human Feelings (Antilles), Bruce Springsteen's ``Born in the U.S.A. (Columbia), Prince's ``Sign o' the Times (Paisley Park), Public Enemy's ``It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back and the Beastie Boys' ``Licensed to Ill, both from Def Jam Records."

This is an RfC to determine if the cited source – quoted above – is stating:


 * That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" in music journalism, or
 * That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" that he awards?

!votes and comments

 * A support !vote here indicates that you agree with Dan56's interpretation and application of the Press-Telegram source so that it is used to assert that the "ultimate accolade" in music criticism is an A+ grade from Robert Christgau.
 * An oppose !vote here indicates that you disagree with Dan56's interpretation and application of the Press-Telegram source and believe that the anonymous writer is asserting that the "ultimate accolade" refers to the highest honor that Robert Christgau gives, not that it's the highest honor in music journalism.

Support - As mentioned in my opening comments, the Press-Telegram introduces their column in the context of "Anyone with more than a passing interest in rock criticism...", and the sentence directly before "the ultimate accolade" characterization already shows that an "A+" is the highest grade in the grading scheme/range, so it's unlikely the source is referring to it as Christgau's "ultimate accolade" or to reiterate this is the highest grade. Furthermore, this characterization ties into this WP article's paragraph on accolades given to the album. Dan56 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The cited source, which is Press-Telegram via an anonymous writer, is not calling an A+ grade from Christgau the "ultimate accolade" in all of music journalism, it's saying that Christgau's ultimate accolade is an A+. Even it if was saying what Dan56 thinks it's saying, this is an extremely bold claim to reproduce from what's essentially an advertisement for one of Christgau's books. This isn't critical commentary from a respected music journalist. For all we know, it's a PR price written by Christgau's publisher. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". (original emphasis) Flow Ridian (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Thank you for inviting my participation Dan, but I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation, going only by the above excerpt from the cited source. (I do not have a subscription to that source - thank you for providing the excerpt!) I seem incapable of brevity, so I have italicized the two key reasons for my vote - ambiguity and bias. First, I think we all need to acknowledge that the pertinent sentence in the source is worded ambiguously, and it could be interpreted linguistically in either way. (So yeah, I'm saying you're both right. :P) Ambiguity of that sort weakens the case for an absolute statement that the source considers it the ultimate accolade in music criticism. The source equally states the alternate interpretation - that it is the ultimate of Christgau's accolades only. The context of the statement is all we have, and that is clearly subject to interpretation as well. What that leaves us with is opinion. This ambiguity alone, IMO, refutes the text as it currently stands in the article, that the source considers it the ultimate accolade period. That is not clearly stated in the one source given. An ambiguous statement in the source, no matter how reliable the source is, cannot support an absolute statement in the article. Second, the source says Christgau's reviews and grading are very biased:
 * "Quirky and opinionated, [his reviews] exemplify passionate, informed polemical criticism. Although Christgau takes the formal values of popular music into consideration, they tend to count less than the political and social ramifications of popular music. The grades dished out by the critic, a self-proclaimed leftie, are as much moral judgments as they are esthetic evaluations."

This source is telling us that Christgau's reviews are inherently biased by his own opinions of "the political and social ramifications of popular music." A critical accolade that is based less on "the formal values of popular music" than on "the political and social ramifications of popular music" (as the source describes Christgau's reviews) can only be an accolade of the sociopolitical impact of a piece of popular music, colored by the intrinsic value of the music itself. It cannot be an accolade based on the quality of the recorded music. The anonymous author of the source seems quite fond of Christgau's reviews, but the source is also saying that "the formal values" of the music mean less than its sociopolitical impact - that Christgau's reviews are heavily biased ("heavily" because the source says the music matters less than the politics). This stated bias in favor of the author's politics would seem, IMO, to make Christgau's reviews less than the ultimate word in music criticism, and any grade he gives as less than the ultimate grade (though the source says the grades are based "as much" on the music and the sociopolitical factors, not "less than," as are his reviews). I therefore think it less likely that a music writer would describe such a heavily biased reviewer and grading system as the source describes as awarding the "ultimate accolade" in music journalism. Dcs002 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose using this low-quality anonymous source to make an extremely exceptional and contentious claim. I would go one step further than Flow Ridian and Dcs002 and contend that the prose only supports that an A+ is the "ultimate accolade" in Christgau's Record Guide: The 80's. That's all the source gives us, because that's all the source is talking about, this one book. To read into it to the extent that an A+ grade from Christgau is the ultimate accolade in music journalism is just plain silly, and it's likely confirmation bias on Dan56's part. Dcs002 makes excellent points about ambiguity and bias: the cited source describes Christgau's reviews as inherently biased, and the cited source is obviously ambiguous at best regarding what the "ultimate accolade" actually means. These are reasons enough to oppose Dan56's application of the anonymous source. Harmelodix (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have great respect for Robert Christgau. That being said, it is clear to me that his A+ is Christgau's "ultimate accolade", which is logical and reasonable, and supported by the source under discussion. We cannot use that source to state that his A+ rating is popular music criticism's "ultimate accolade", as that is an extraordinary claim that would require multiple sources of much higher quality. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- As per the comments above. Nothing to add really. -- Shudde  talk 06:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Please don't muddy the waters by debating people's !votes. Let's have a polite discussion in this sub-secion instead. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise ;) Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a potential problem with this poll. The heading says this is a Poll/consensus for keeping 'which the Press-Telegram called 'the ultimate accolade.'" However, immediately above the !votes and comments heading, we find:
 * This is an RfC to determine if the cited source – quoted above – is stating:


 * That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" in music journalism, or
 * That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" that he awards?

I saw this definition first, and it took me a while to figure out exactly what it meant to support or oppose something rather than saying I agree with the first interpretation or the second. But I'm unique, and maybe it's just me who gets confused so easily, but when determining consensus, you might want to be sure to read and understand the text and make sure the votes are counted properly - if it comes down to majority rules, that is. Dcs002 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious,, because above you say that Dan56 "invited" you to this discussion, but I don't see the diff where Dan56 contacted you at your talk page. Did he contact you at you talk page, or did he send you an e-mail inviting you? Flow Ridian (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's there, at his talk page. Dan56 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC notices have already gone out, so why are you "recruiting" anyone at this point? Why can't you ever allow a discussion to unfold without cherry-picking who shows up to comment? Harmelodix (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about checking the time of that invite before making any dillhole accusations by way of following my activities, again? Dan56 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that everything is about you? This RfC is listed at Requests for comment/Biographies, which I have on my watchlist. Harmelodix (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you have this page on your watchlist as well? Forgive me if I find it difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt. Dan56 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a matter of fact I did/do. I think that your continued accusations are crossing a line into personal attacks, and I think you use this as a method of discrediting editors who disagree with you. I see that Flow Ridian also complained that you had personalized this dispute. Harmelodix (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You bothered involving yourself here with an unnecessary, careless accusation about "recruiting", "cherry-picking", and not allowing discussions to unfold, so don't play innocent in all of this. Without it, I wouldn't have bothered responding. And I find it unlikely an editor with no involvement in WP:FAC would have had it on their watchlist. Sorry, but that's just me. Dan56 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I watch that page to learn, as I plan to bring a couple of articles there when I feel prepared. Harmelodix (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But what insight would a page that mostly shows editors/delegates archiving or listing nominations offer? Most of the changes that happen there are like these. Dan56 (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan, this isn't the place for you to question me, but if you must know I watch WP:FAC to see the list of noms/reviews and the talk page discussions. Then I look at those noms that interest me, and I try to pick up tips from reviewers. Is there a better way to see the list of FACs? Harmelodix (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How does having recent changes/diffs from WP:FAC on your watchlist show you the list? It just displays changes like the one I linked. Simply going to WP:FAC would do the trick. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We all feel passionate about music, and our opinions are especially charged with emotions because music does that for us. It's hard to let go of that, I really understand. But this discussion has degenerated within just a few hours into personal bickering that is not related to the effort to reach consensus. "Dillhole accusations" and "Why do you think that everything is about you" are both unacceptable as personal attack or not assuming good faith. Please take a breath and remember that we're all here to make a great encyclopedia, nothing else. The WORST thing that can ever happen here is that this encyclopedia might end up having content we disagree with. It happens. (BTW, I am speaking to myself as much anyone else here. Lordy knows I struggle with this too!) Dcs002 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan and Flow, thank you for clarifying what the votes mean. :) Dcs002 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

More print-source checks
In response to 's desire for a more concerted source check, I've written out the remaining print sources (and their text in italics) that were not checked at the last FAC and reviewed them against the article text. Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 5, Larkin, 1998

p. 5280: "...appeared on Body Meta (1978, recorded 1975..."


 * "first recorded with Prime Time in 1975 for the album Body Meta, which was released in 1978.[5]"


 * Ref 8, Litweiler, 1992

p. 170: "''In March 1979 Ornette brought Prime Time — that's what he was consistently calling his band by then — into RCA's New York recording studios to make a direct-to-disc album, but mechanical problems with the recording apparatus made the session a waste of time and energy, In April Ornette brought Prime Time to play on one of the most popular television programs in America, Saturday Night Live, a weekly broadcast of Second City-style comedy sketches. Ornette's manager by then was Kunle Mwanga, a friend since the days of 1 3 1 Prince Street; Mwanga had managed Anthony Braxton, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, and David Murray, and would go on to manage other forward-looking jazz artists, including Edward Blackwell, in years to come. Ornette now wanted to set up his own record company, Phrase Text, named after his music- publishing company; the failed direct-to-disc session was a Phrase Text project, and Mwanga set up a Phrase Text session at CBS Studios, with nineteen-year-old Calvin Weston replacing Ronald Shannon Jackson as Denardo's drum partner. It was the first time an American label had recorded a digital album in New York City, and it made front-page news in Billboard. This session went off without any technical difficulties ... The Phrase Text date was at first titled Fashion Faces, and was later issued by the Antilles label as Of Human Feelings ''"


 * "In March 1979, Coleman went to RCA Records' New York studio and attempted to produce an album with Prime Time by direct-to-disc recording. However, they encountered mechanical problems with the studio equipment, and their recording was ultimately rejected. The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, his music publishing company. Nonetheless, Coleman still wanted to set up his own record company with the same name, so he chose his longtime friend Kunle Mwanga to be his manager. In April, Mwanga arranged another session at CBS Studios in New York City.[8]"


 * Ref 12, Wilson, 1999

p. 207: "according to Coleman the first digitally recorded jazz LP in the US"


 * "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the jazz album to be digitally recorded in the United States.[12]"


 * Ref 19, Mandel, 2007

p. 162-3: "Of Human Feelings does not suggest the diaphanous eroticism of Miles' In a Silent Way, is not as darkly grandiose as Bitches Brew or as compellingly nasty as On the Corner. It is snappy, unpretentious and inordinately upbeat -- rather like a tight rhythm 'n' blues band"


 * "According to journalist Howard Mandel, the album's "snappy" and "unpretentious" music was more comparable to a coherent R&B band than jazz fusion.[19]"


 * Ref 20, Giddins, 1982

p. 4: "guitarist Bern Nix playfully strums variants on the melodies while guitarist Charlie Ellerbee applies linear counterpoint with a Hendrixian accent."


 * "Ellerbee provided accented linear counterpoint, while Nix played variations of the song's melody.[20]"


 * Ref 23, Davis, 1986

p. 142-3: "Just a few years ago it appeared that Coleman's star was on the rise again ... a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent in 1981"


 * "According to jazz writer Francis Davis, "a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent" for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be "on the rise again".[23]"


 * Ref 24, Wilson, 1999

p. 206: "Of Human Feelings is probably the catchiest, yes, one could even say the most commercial album, that Coleman had recorded up until 1979"


 * "German musicologist Peter Niklas Wilson said that the album may have been the most tuneful and commercial-sounding of his career at that point.[24]"


 * Ref 25, Litweiler, 1992

p. 152, 170: "''It was the first time an American label had recorded a digital album in New York City, and it made front-page news in Billboard" (p. 170; could not access p. 152 through GoogleBooks)


 * "Billboard magazine published a front-page story at the time about its distinction as both the first digital album recorded in New York City and the first digital jazz album recorded by an American label.[25]"


 * Ref 29, Giddins + Kot

Giddins, p. 4: ""The melodic lamentations are among Coleman's richest--notably 'Sleep Talk'", Kot: "''he has written many glorious melodies steeped in the blues of his native Texas. Among the best are the melancholy 'Sleep Talk'...''"


 * "The melody of "Sleep Talk" was said to be among Coleman's best by critics Gary Giddins and Greg Kot.[29]"


 * Ref 34, Albertson, 1982

p. 83: "The effect can be quite mesmerizing, but the music also begins to lose definition after a while, and the repetitious rhythm makes me wish someone would give the throttle a good yank. This album was produced by Coleman himself, but it does not do justice to his art."


 * "criticized Coleman's production and felt that the combination of saxophone and bizarre funk can be captivating, but ultimately loses clarity.[34]"


 * Ref 37, Considine, 1982

p. 73: " I'd rate Human Feelings above Body Mela and below the pivotal Dancing In Your Head, though learned friends have seriously maintained that it's the best of the three: best organized, most cleanly executed, sleekest in the water"


 * "Considine said that he would rate the album higher than its predecessor Body Meta, but below the "pivotal" Dancing in Your Head, although he remarked that his more knowledgeable friends consider Of Human Feelings to be the best of the three albums because of its composition and the players' execution.[37]"


 * Ref 43 + 44, Davis, 1986


 * The material cited from Davis' 1986 book (pp. 143-44) was reprinted in Davis' 2009 book Jazz and its Discontents (p. 23, full preview accessible at Googlebooks)


 * Ref 45, Cooper, 2004

p. 238 "Of Human Feelings, Ornette Coleman (Mango): Harmolodics goes electric. Out of print despite Ornette's stature and Mango's island connection. "


 * "Of Human Feelings later went out of print.[45]"


 * Ref 48, Jenkins, 2004

p. 97: "The set was more successful by far than Body Meta, although Coleman's basic, repetitive compositions took getting used to."


 * "Jazz journalist Todd S. Jenkins felt that it was more successful than Body Meta, even though Coleman's simple compositions sounded repetitive and less accessible.[48]"

File:Ornette Coleman - Sleep Talk.ogg
File:Ornette Coleman - Sleep Talk.ogg needs a better caption in order to satisfy WP:NFCC. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've added a bit more to it. While I have you here, can you keep an eye on Vmavanti and his bullshit at Aja (album)? I'm trying my best at the talk page with them, but honestly don't feel confident in handling another one of his degrading polemics. isento (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a content dispute. And I second what Martin said here. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Link
"however, only charting on the Top Jazz Albums, where it spent 26 weeks" - need better link, allmusic archive is dead. not shown on Billboard Magazine but reached #15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzfan777 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)