Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Far Side Virtual/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [//en.wikipedia.org/?diff=609954311].

Far Side Virtual

 * Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Far Side Virtual is a strange album. It's experimental and outside the mainstream, but has received (and continues to receive) a glut of critical attention; it's alternately described as inconsequentially goofy or bleakly nihilistic, hinging on people's inability to tell if it's being performed with a straight face or not; and at the end of the day, it's just an album of songs that sound like replicas of circa-2004 MIDI ringtones. I worked on this article a lot last year, digging up a surprising amount about an album that I only had a little interest in. Looking at it again, I feel that the article is as comprehensive as an article about a recent album can be, and that I summarized a broad swath of critical opinions, analyses and interpretations. I think enough time has passed that we have some distance from the release date and I can confidently say that this is ready to be featured. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a few comments:
 * I can't speak for everyone but I was unfamiliar with the word drone before reading the lead. I'd suggest the full "drone music" instead.
 * Reworded
 * Farraro's announcement of the album quote probably needs an explanation. Even something simple like saying that (if this is accurate) his press releases were part of his performance, or whatever would be the most accurate. But as it stands alone I don't think it works.
 * There really is no further explanation out there—sources pretty much published the quotes with a "take this as it is" attitude by letting the absurdity of the words stand for themselves. They were certainly "part of" his performance but not in a way that people chose to comment on. It's noteworthy enough that he made what the reader can clearly figure out is a rather nontraditional press release that resonates with the themes discussed later. My hands are tied in terms of talking about it anyway due to lack of sourcing, but its inclusion is important. It would be OR to extrapolate further, to say that the statement was "deliberately absurd," even though that is plainly the case.
 * Is there any more information about the albums writing or recording?
 * Not really.
 * I think that overall it needs much more background info other than just saying that it was made on Garage Band. There's a lot of great theory and interpretation but I think you should add much more information (if it is available) on the process and events surrounding its writing and recording. Obviously this isn't an album that was recorded in the traditional sense, and admittedly I don't personally know much about this type of thing. But I think that any other casual reader who is as unfamiliar as I am would also have some difficulty with aspects of the article that may seem overly obvious to people who know a lot about this genre of music.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I clarified a little with Garageband, but there's not much more to say about the album's writing or recording. Properly speaking it was not "recorded," that is, no sound was recorded with a mic, it was all synthesized within audio software. He probably spent a lot of time moving little MIDI notes around on an audio timeline. Not much more to say there. I don't feel like explaining how to use GarageBand is a task for this article, curious people can click through to that page and figure out what kind of software it is. Certainly, the article makes clear that the software makes generic electronic sounds. He was not working with sophisticated technology. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero
I feel bad that this FAC's gotten so little attention. Mine's been up for far less time and, well, hasn't gotten the kind I'd have liked, but attention nonetheless. Anyway, here I go.
 * "electronic album by James Ferraro" - Ambiguous at first glance; electronic music or released in an electronic format? Since I assume it's the former, link to that genre. (Really, though, it's not the best choice of genre, either. I'd side with "experimental music" or "vaporwave".)
 * Changed; when I first wrote the article vaporwave did not yet have its own article, which has thankfully happened in the interim.


 * "and toward a sharply" - "and" may be unnecessary
 * Reworded


 * "corporate muzak and obsolete computer sounds" - Minor, but consider switching the text to just "elevator music"; elevator music is a more well-known term that is roughly correct within Wikipedia's terminology for what articles exist and is close enough, but muzak is certainly more precise in terms of what people say about the album.
 * changed; I put "elevator music" in quotes to indicate that it is not precisely correct. This mainly


 * "Ferraro claimed to have first conceived" - claimed when and in what context - why not "has claimed"? Actually, I'd prefer you just say that that's how he conceived of it, as I don't see any reason to doubt him.
 * Reworded


 * "that covers much of the same sonic and conceptual territory" - A little redundant/obvious. I'd change this construction to "catalysts of an underground electronic music movement called vaporwave."
 * I want to retain this because subsequent vaporwave music tends to be, overall, more sample-based than Far Side Virtual. That would be to say: Far Side Virtual is original music that imitates the style of "muzak," while most vaporwave (especially afte FSV) samples and distorts old muzak tracks.


 * "The album was preceded on the label" - awkward
 * Reworded


 * "Princess Diana" - may want to link to her
 * Done


 * "few would want to purchase a ringtone album" - Seems contradictory given the preceding expanse of the sentence. A set of ringtones, when contrasted with a full album as this idea is, wouldn't be a "ringtone album", would it?
 * You're right, reworded


 * "cleanly produced" - possibly not NPOV
 * Removed


 * "were described as "perversely commonplace,"" - by whom? One reviewer? Ferraro?
 * Clarified


 * "the Skype log-in sound" - sounds slightly informal; what about something like "the log-in jingle for Skype"?
 * I think "log-in sound" would be more formal. Jingle implies a melody, whereas in this case the sound sampled is literally one rising tone.


 * "a Windows shut-down melody" - Are there more than one?
 * There are new Windows shut-down melodies for each version. 98 differs from XP differs from Vista differs from 7 etc. The specific OS identity of the sample in question is not out there but critics have certainly identified that it is one of the Windows melodies.


 * "while retaining—and reappropriating—the form and ethos of noise music" - ...What?
 * Reworded and added a source to back it up. Multiple critics have said that the album is "noise" in the sense that it is meant to capture the noise of the outside world, but that it's not the standard distorted industrial noise associated with "noise music" but a new noise that is cleaner and associated with post-industrial chirpy smartphone sounds. To explain any further would be original research but I think what I've written represents the critical sources fairly, and gives a broad overview without delving into technical explanation that would become OR.


 * "post-modern" - add a link
 * Done


 * "Simon Reynolds said that" - Mention that he's an (English) music critic or something. I've never heard of him.
 * Done


 * "a choice that proved to be polarizing among readers" - Can you elaborate?
 * I feel that the following paragraph elaborates in enough detail. The backlash was likely one picked up by the writers via word of mouth and forum posts. To the degree that the backlash would be represented by a reliable source, it is encapsulated by the fact that the controversy was significant enough that the magazine chose to respond at all.


 * Are Dummy and Hydra Magazine reliable sources?
 * Yes. They're not the very most popular (hence, no Wiki pages about them) but they are indeed reliable about their niche coverage area, which this article falls within.


 * Not sure about the infobox genre choices; "ambient" and "experimental" appear nowhere else in the article.
 * Removed

Tezero (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback. I myself have been busy with end-of-semester college responsibilities but I hope I've adequately responded to your comments. Please let me know if you have any further comments. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Yeah, to answer your question, it looks better. I can't think of anything else, so I'll be happy to congratulate you on a well-written article about a rather niche topic. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open 6 weeks or so this review has stalled without achieving clear consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.