User:Brieflysentient

'Erk alors! ...' a quick and dirty page to start (we'll get there later with the 12" version, maybe)

Rationale
I've just found a very large pile of great music reference books after the n'th move in a few years. It would be a shame to not add the references to Wikipedia's music pages (especially as so many have the dreaded grumpy 'no references' or 'citation needed' tags). Doesn't quite solve the problem, or ensure every site is encyclopaedic, but it's another step on the way.

Not only that, it's intriguing to see how adding an entry to a page that's been rusting away and whimpering in a corner for a few years makes it suddenly spring to life with other changes. Call it cattle prod editing (call it what you like, actually).

On the way I'll tighten up the entries where possible, remove any obvious errors or stuff that isn't exactly proven or puffery, but I have no intention of removing any material that enhances the entry and is just waiting for the right citation to firm it up. After all, the ref might just turn up later, and it would be a shame to wear the keyboard out re-writing the entry. However, in general, I don't plan to completely re-write entries as I go and spend loads of time researching to do so - it's probably better if it's done organically as I work through the library, otherwise I'll never get them read! So, much as I'd love to give some of the articles I work on a complete make-over, in practice that will take time as I go along (of course maybe, just maybe, as I do bits here and there others will toddle along behind and clean-up for me).

I'll also be largely concentrating on the European entries, as that's my best side. Although if I know enough about anything outside of this field to be confident enough to pitch in, then I will. If anyone wnats to contact me to ask for details of a particular entry I haven't covered, please do ...

which brings me to ...

Contact me
... feel free to post on the talk page. It's nice to know where you've gone right, and useful to know what's been done wrong. Please bear in mind that nothing here is done with malice, and my knowledge of Wikipedia style protocols is not that of an N'th degree wizard of whatever colour. I'm working on the basis that the content is the message, and there's always a style guru about. Gently please!

Or if there's a page you want help on or would like to see ...

Of course, if you've just got an agenda or a non-logical psychosis, or your just precious about something I do or change, please feel free to bother someone else. I'm busy - forever :-)).

Entry history
Round 1 - I've started with Lillian Roxon's wonderful encyclopedia, not quite purely randomly as I love that book. Carefully, though - because her dates at least are sometimes circumspect. However, there are superb facts there which I've added as appropriate, and anyone with a smidgin of an interest in even the most dodgy of 60's music should love the entries within. Especially the ascerbic wit and a lesson in the sweet and gentle put-down. It should be on every music fan's bookshelf - and still available cheaply.

Round 2 - Colin Larkin's magnificent 'Encyclopedia of Popular Music'. I've recently acquired the full tome, but as I already own the breakdowns published by Virgin, I'm working through those, starting with the 1960s volume. Interesting to see how many of the pages I've checked have 'similar' wording to Larkin - although to be fair most of that is clearly because people have referred to web sites that have cheerfully lifted his entries. I'll add references to Larkin, update good missing stuff, and re-word the 'borrowed' entries. In doing so, I'll avoid most of the major entries and stick to the less well-known, as artists like The Animals and the Beach Boys are, or should be well served from elsewhere (or if they aren't they easily can be).

I've noticed on the way through that some entries are not strictly accurate - Larkin himself points out that he has put some 'bombs' in there, due to a rightful irritation with the wholesale lifting of his material I mentioned above. Anything that sticks out as one of those, or where the necessary shortness of his entry leads to errors of chronology if you don't read carefully enough or by omission of intermediate information, I've checked thoroughly before adding, or skipped with a mental flag (ok - a note somewhere) to revisit later.

Onward ....